university of california, irvine university of … · kubler-ross (1969) examines death and dying...

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

The Deaccreditation of Compton Community College:

An Interpretation Through the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct

DISSERTATION

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

BY

Keith Charles Curry

Committee: Dr. Michael E. Martinez, UCI, Committee Chair

Dr. Tyrone Howard, UCLA Dr. Liane Brouillette, UCI

2011

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated

to my wife

Ms. Nina Elizabeth Scott Curry

To my son

Mr. Kamilo Ali Curry

To my mom

Ms. Carolyn Elaine Curry

To my brothers

Kenneth Carl Curry Jr. Kevin Christopher Curry

and to my extended family and friends.

iii

Table of Contents

Page

LIST OF TABLES v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

CURRICULUM VITAE ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER I–COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1

Background of the Problem 1

Interpretation Through the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct 5

Statement of the Problem 13

Research Questions 13

Significance 13

The Study 14

CHAPTER II–REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 17

Mission and Function of Community Colleges 17

Community Colleges in California 18

Application of the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct on 20 Compton Community College

Theoretical Framework: Kubler-Ross Grief Construct 25

Critique of Kubler-Ross Grief Construct 27 Relevant Research that Utilized the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct 29

Workforce Closure 29

Organizational Change 34

CHAPTER III–METHODOLOGY 45

iv

Site 45

Participants 46

Data Collection 47

Interviews 48

Focus Group 49

Data Analysis Plan 50

CHAPTER IV–FINDINGS 52

Study Participants Demographic Composition 53

Online Survey Results 59

One-on-One Interviews Results 81

Focus-Group Results 106

CHAPTER V–DISCUSSION 115

Summary of Findings 115

Limitations of the Study 123

Recommendations 124

Future Directions of the Study 127

REFERENCES 129

APPENDICES 132

Appendix A: Online Survey Questions 132

Appendix B: One-on-One Interview Questions 138 Appendix C: Focus Group Interview Questions 140

Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Approved Study Information Sheet 141

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Grief Construct Applied to the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College 5 Table 2 Researcher’s Hypotheses on How the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College District Affected the Employment Groups 10 Table 3 2005-2006 Study Participants Employment Group 53

Table 4 2010-2011 Study Participants Employment Group 53 Table 5 Years of Employment with Compton Community College District (CCCD) 54 Table 6 Gender of Study Participants 55 Table 7 Ethnicity of Survey Participants 56 Table 8 Study Participants Attended

Classes at Compton Community College (CCC) 57

Table 9 Study Participants Who Family Member Attended Compton Community College (CCC) 58

Table 10 Study Participants Who Live In the Compton Community College District (CCCD) Service Area 59

Table 11 Study Participants Understanding of the Accrediting Commission Decision 60

Table 12 Study Participants’ Beliefs When They Learned About the Deaccreditation Decision 61

Table 13 Reasons the Study Participants Believed Compton Community College (CCC) Was Deaccreditated 62

Table 14 Study Participants’ Beliefs About

Compton Community College (CCC) Appeal to the Accrediting Commission 63

Table 15 Study Participants’ Beliefs About the Compton Community College (CCC) Deaccreditation After the Appeal Was Denied 64

vi

Table 16 Study Participants Who Felt Angry About the Accrediting Commission Decision 65

Table 17 Targets of Study Participants Anger Because of the Deaccreditation Decision of Compton Community College (CCC) 66

Table 18 Blamed Someone Because of the Deaccreditation Decision 67

Table 19 Targets of Study Participants Blame Following the Compton Community College (CCC) Deaccreditation Decision 68

Table 20 Study Participants Who Sought Assistance or Guidance During the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College (CCC) 70

Table 21 Study Participants Who Were Familiar With Assembly Bill 318 71

Table 22 Study Participants Who Supported Assembly Bill 318 72

Table 23 Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Received Their Layoff Notice Dated March 26, 2006 73

Table 24 Study Participants Who Lost Hope That Compton Community College Would Remain Open After They Received Their Layoff Notice 74

Table 25 Study Participants Who Sought Guidance About Their Future Employment After Receiving Their Layoff Notice 75

Table 26 Study Participants Sought Guidance From After Receiving Their Layoff Notice 76

Table 27 Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feeling When They Learned About the Agreement With Santa Monica College 77

Table 28 Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Learned Assembly Bill 318 Was Signed By the Governor of the State of California 78

vii

Table 29 Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Learned About the Agreement With El Camino College 79

Table 30 Study Participants Who Did or Did Not Accept the Possible Closure of Compton Community College During the 2005-2006 Year 80

Table 31 Study Participants Who Did or Did Not Accept the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College in 2010 81

Table 32 Summary of Findings on How the 118 Deaccreditation of Compton Community College District Affected the Employment Groups

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

While I was writing my dissertation there were times when I thought I was not

capable of finishing. I completed the process with the support and encouragement I

received from my family, friends, and co-workers. The support came first and foremost

from my wife Nina Elizabeth Scott-Curry for reminding me to “just finish it.” I want to

acknowledge my friends who encouraged me and were proud of what I was doing which

meant more to me than anyone could imagine.

I would like to thank the staff, faculty, and administrators from Compton

Community College District who participated in the study. Your professionalism and

undying support of students continues to impress me each and every day.

I would not have this document today if it were not for the effort of my

dissertation committee chair, Dr. Michael Martinez. Without his untiring support and

recommendations this document would not be a reality. I truly must thank him for the

direction he provided with completing this document. Recognition must also go to Dr.

Tyrone Howard and Dr. Liane Brouillette for their guidance as dissertation committee

members.

To all of those who I have not specifically mentioned, who cared enough to ask

about my progress and check in with me from time to time, which encouraged me to

complete this ten year marathon process of dissertation writing.

ix

CURRICULUM VITAE

Keith Charles Curry

1999 B.A. in American Studies, University of California,

Santa Cruz

2011 Ed.D. Educational Leadership, University of California, Irvine & University of California, Los Angeles

FIELD OF STUDY

Higher Education Administration

x

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION



By

Keith Charles Curry

Doctor of Education

University of California, Irvine, 2011

Professor Michael E. Martinez, Chair

This dissertation builds upon Hoffman and Wallace’s (2008) research on the

psychological consequences of the deaccreditation process of Compton Community

College, which in turn draws upon Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ Death and Dying (1969) grief

construct. Kubler-Ross (1969) examines death and dying through five stages: denial,

anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The Kubler-Ross (1969) death and dying

model was used to examine the perspective of employees at Compton Community

College prior to the deaccreditation of the institution. This dissertation builds upon

Hoffman and Wallace’s (2008) study by examining the grieving process of an

organization from the perspective of the campus employment groups, i.e. faculty, staff,

and administrators. This study tested the Kubler-Ross grief construct model as a way of

interpreting events relating to the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of Compton

Community College employees during the deaccreditation process. Participants selected

for this study were Compton Community College employees who were employed at the

College from January, 2005 through August, 2006.

xi

This study was conducted in three phases. In phase one, the researcher requested

that employees complete an online survey. The survey explored the participants beliefs,

feelings, emotions, and perceptions towards the events that occurred during the

deaccreditation process of Compton Community College. In phase two, the researcher

conducted interviews with four employees from each employment group. During these

interviews, which were semi-structured, the researcher utilized open-ended questions to

explore the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of employees during the

deaccreditation process of Compton Community College. Finally, in phase three, the

researcher conducted focus groups with four employees from each employment group.

During the focus group interviews the researcher reexamined the model being used for

this study with the participants. In the focus group interviews the researcher explored

whether the model accurately reflected the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of

the employees of Compton Community College during the deaccreditation process.

1

CHAPTER I–COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Background to the Problem

Compton Community College was established in 1927 as a campus of Compton

Union High School District. In 1950, local voters approved a bond separating the College

from the local high school district, and a new campus was constructed at its current

location (El Camino College Compton Center, 2009). During the spring of 2004 and

through the summer of 2006, several events led to the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College. First, in the spring of 2004, the Chancellor of the California

Community Colleges, as authorized under California Assembly Bill 61, appointed a

Special Trustee and suspended the authority of the Board of Trustees of the Compton

Community College District. The Special Trustee has sole authority over Compton

Community College District’s assets, contracts, expenditures, facilities, funds, personnel,

and property (California Education Code, 2010). According to California Assembly Bill

61, Compton Community College District was placed under a Special Trustee due to

fiscal instability (California Education Code, 2010).

The Special Trustee was imposed because Compton Community College’s ending

balance for the previous fiscal year 2002-2003 was projected as a negative $275,000.

Information in the spring of 2004 indicated that Compton Community College would run

out of general fund dollars on April 1, 2004, two months before the end of the fiscal year

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2005). At the time of this

study Compton Community College District is the only community college district under

state receivership and administered by a state appointed Special Trustee.

In the spring of 2004, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior

Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges conducted a visit to

2

Compton Community College. In their report the Commission recommended that during

the next comprehensive visit by the Commission a thorough review of Compton

Community College educational programs and services be completed (Accrediting

Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2005). During this visit the

Commission noted that Compton Community College was out of compliance with the

Commission standards and on January 31, 2005 placed this institution on Show Cause

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2005). In a letter to the

Compton Community College President on June 17, 2005, the Accrediting Commission

for Community and Junior Colleges took action to terminate the accreditation of

Compton Community College.

Finally in the summer of 2006, after appealing the decision of the Commission,

Compton Community College was notified by the Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges that the Commission was upholding their previous

decision and the deaccreditation of the institution was to occur. The impact of

deaccreditation meant Compton Community College would not have the ability to offer

classes and grant degrees with units transferable to other colleges and universities.

In order to continue to offer accredited courses, the Governor of the State of

California signed special legislation, Assembly Bill 318, which allowed Compton

Community College District to enter into an agreement to provide educational services on

the former Compton Community College site. On July 24, 2006 Compton Community

College District began negotiations with El Camino Community College District over an

agreement to provide educational and student support services to the residents of the

District at the site of the former Compton Community College (El Camino College

Compton Center, 2009). This agreement was approved by the Compton Community

3

College District and El Camino Community College District, during August of 2006, and

was revised in June, 2008. Through this agreement the El Camino College Compton

Community Educational Center was established.

The administration of the El Camino College Compton Community Educational

Center is currently led by the Superintendent/President of El Camino College, and the

Vice President of the El Camino College Compton Center, who oversees the day-to-day

operations of the Compton Community Educational Center (El Camino Community

College District & Compton Community College District , 2010), formerly known as

Compton Community College. Compton Community College District exists under the

authority of the state appointed Special Trustee. The administration of Compton

Community College District is led by the Chief Executive Officer who reports to the state

appointed Special Trustee (El Camino Community College District & Compton

Community College District, 2010).

The 2006 statement below from California Community College Chancellor

Marshall Drummond, excerpted from "Compton Community College Keeping the Doors

Open to Rebuild and Preserve Educational Excellence for Future Generations,”

characterizes the deaccreditation of the college as follows:

For the largely Latino and African American student body, Compton Community

College is home in their hearts. The faculty and staff are dedicated and passionate

about their college, their profession, and their students. The quality of education

at Compton has never been challenged or questioned. Compton students receive

excellent instruction from caring, involved teachers and supportive services by

staff who nurture and guide them toward fulfillment of their personal and

educational goals-this is the hallmark of Compton Community College. The

4

problems that brought the college to near-closure and eventual disaccreditation

were not of their making, but were the culmination of decades of errant, self-

serving individuals, faulty decision-making, and, at times, outright neglect and

corruption by a few district officials. (Drummond, 2006, p.1)

Prior to the deaccreditation of Compton Community College, the College served a large

Latino and African American student body of 10,246 students in the 2005-2006 academic

year (California Community College Data Mart, 2009). Of those students 47% and 48.9%

were Latino and African American respectively (California Community College Data

Mart, 2009).

As Chancellor Marshall Drummond described, the Compton Community College

deaccreditation was not the making of the faculty and staff. However, many unanswered

questions and unconfirmed hypotheses remain regarding the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College. To address these unanswered questions and hypotheses, the

researcher examines the deaccreditation of Compton Community College through

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ On Death and Dying (1969) grief construct. The Kubler-Ross

grief construct examines death and dying through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining

depression, and acceptance for terminally ill patients. In this study, the researcher

contends that the grief construct can be applied profitably to the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College and, in particular, to understanding how the employees

from each employment group responded to the deaccreditation of their institution. Table

1 illustrates the timeline for each stage of the grief construct and how each stage applies

to the deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

5

Table 1. Grief Construct Applied to the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College

Kubler-Ross Grief Stages

Compton Community College Deaccreditation Events

Timeline

DENIAL

Accrediting Commission Notifications: show cause and deaccreditation

January 2005- November 2005

ANGER

Deaccreditation appeal is denied November 2005- February 2006

BARGAINING

Bargaining with state legislators, community members, the California Community College

Chancellors, and the Accrediting Commission to keep the doors of the institution open

November 2005- June 30, 2006

DEPRESSION

Lay-off notices received and employees prepare for possible closure

March 2006-August 2006

ACCEPTANCE Personnel accept the closure of the institution May 2006- August 21, 2006

Interpretation Through the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct

Several hypotheses proposed in this study are anchored to Kubler-Ross’ grief

construct. Together these hypotheses form an initial model of the beliefs, feelings,

emotions, and perceptions of the employees of Compton Community College. In turn, the

grief stages map onto specific events and time spans.

Denial. The denial stage of the deaccreditation of Compton Community College

occurred from January 2005 through November 2005. On January 31, 2005 Compton

Community College was placed on Show Cause by the Accrediting Commission.

Compton Community College responded to the Show Cause report and was later visited

by the Show Cause Visiting Team on April 14, 2005 through April 15, 2005. Compton

Community College was notified on June 17, 2005 by the Accrediting Commission that

the institution was to be deaccreditated. In response, Compton Community College

submitted an appeal to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, anticipating that the June 2005

decision would be overturned by the Accrediting Commission through the appeal process

6

in November of 2005. Relevant to this stage, the researcher has several fine grained

hypotheses that were studied. The researcher asserts the following hypotheses to explain

why Compton Community College District employees were in denial that the

deaccreditation of the institution would occur. First, and most important, the employees

did not expect that the deaccreditation would actually happen to Compton Community

College since no other community college in California had previously been

deaccreditated. Second, the College employees expected the California Community

College Chancellors Office, through the state appointed Special Trustee, to respond to the

deficiencies reported in the June 17, 2005 letter from the Accrediting Commission and

assert that Compton Community College should remain open and accredited. Finally, the

faculty felt the deaccreditation would not occur because the original report from the

Accrediting Commission placed the college on Show Cause due to fiscal

mismanagement.

Anger. On November 18, 2005, Compton Community College received a letter

from the Accrediting Commission reaffirming the deaccreditation of the institution. The

researcher hypothesizes that the anger stage of the Kubler-Ross grief construct began on

this date, among Compton Community College District personnel, and continued among

some employees through February of 2006. The researcher explored several hypotheses

about the nature of anger during this stage. First, the employees felt anger towards the

Accrediting Commission, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the local

governing board of Compton Community College District, local and state-wide

politicians, and the Special Trustee for not preventing the deaccreditation of their

institution. Second, during the anger stage, each employment group began to blame

others for the deaccreditation of the institution. For example, the faculty blamed the

7

administrators for their lack of oversight of the campus. The administrators and the staff

blamed the faculty for poor teaching habits. The faculty blamed administrators for not

providing sufficient funds to support the academic quality of the institution. The faculty

and administrators, in turn, blamed the classified staff for lack of professionalism and

lack of customer service to students. The faculty, staff, and administrators blamed the

former administrators for mismanagement of the college. Finally the faculty and

administrators blamed the maintenance and operation department, which are members of

the staff group, for lack of cleanliness of the campus.

In addition to the anger among the employment groups, community members felt

anger about the deaccreditation of the institution. They organized fellow community

members, local politicians, faculty, staff, and administrators to form the “Save Compton

Community College” organization which was an affiliate of the Concerned Citizens of

Compton organization. This organization met every Thursday evening from November,

2005, through June, 2006, to discuss the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College.

Bargaining. The formation of the Save Compton Community College

organization is when the researcher asserts the bargaining stage of the Kubler-Ross grief

construct began for the employees: starting in November, 2005, and concluding in April,

2006. In association with the bargaining stage the researcher has several hypotheses that

were studied. First, the researcher asserts the employees were seeking assistance from

their union leadership, local and state-wide politicians, community members, and state-

wide organizations, they were affiliated with, to help save their institution from being

deaccreditated. Second, the employees were expecting some individual or special

legislation to save the institution from deaccreditation. The faculty worked closely with

8

the Special Trustee on the special legislation: Assembly Bill 318. Third, they expected,

through their local and state-wide politicians, to exert political pressure on the

Accrediting Commission to overturn the previous decisions.

Depression. The depression stage of the Kubler-Ross grief construct began in

March, 2006, and concluded in August, 2006. This stage, which the researcher asserts

overlaps with the bargaining stage, began with the layoff notices each faculty, staff, and

administrator received from the interim President/Superintendent of Compton

Community College on March 26, 2006. A subsequent hearing with the administrative

law judge on April 3, 2006 approved the layoffs of the Compton Community College

District employees effective June 30, 2006. Many employees appeared to be in

depression about the possible loss of their employment after the spring semester of 2006

and the uncertainty of classes being offered in the summer of 2006.

During this stage, the researcher asserts that all employment groups began to seek

guidance regarding their employment status. The administrators were in regular

discussions with the President/Superintendent regarding their employment for the

summer of 2006 and upcoming academic year. The faculty were in discussions with the

their faculty leaders, the faculty division chair assigned to their academic division, the

administrator responsible for their academic division, the college

President/Superintendent, and the Special Trustee regarding their employment status for

the summer of 2006 and for the upcoming academic year. Staff were in discussion with

their labor leaders, their immediate supervisor, the administrator responsible for their

department/program, the college President/Superintendent, and the Special Trustee

regarding their employment status for the summer of 2006 and for the upcoming

academic year.

9

Finally, during this stage, the faculty, staff, and administrators were in depression

trying to find answers to why the College was deaccreditated and knowing that June 30,

2006 would be their last day of employment with the district. In the depression stage the

employment groups gave up hope that the institution would survive.

Acceptance. The acceptance phase of the Kubler-Ross grief construct began in

May 2006 through August 21, 2006. The researcher’s hypothesis is that the depression

and the acceptance stages of the grief construct overlapped. During the acceptance stage

the researcher asserts the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, through the

Special Trustee, was working with legislators on the passage of the special legislation,

Assembly Bill 318, which would keep the doors open for this institution. The Special

Trustee approved an instructional services agreement with Santa Monica College on June

5, 2006 for summer 2006. The employment groups were pleased with this agreement

because they would have employment for the summer of 2006.

The employment groups were satisfied that Assembly Bill 318 was signed by the

Governor of the State of California on June 30, 2006 because it allowed for educational

services to be provided on the Compton Community College site by an accredited

college. Compton Community College District employment groups accepted the death of

the institution because their employment status would remain while providing services

for El Camino College. The death of Compton Community College occurred when the

Special Trustee approved the closure of the institution and the agreement with El Camino

Community College on August 21, 2006. The agreement with El Camino College was

effective August 22, 2006. Table 2 summaries the researcher’s hypotheses on how each

personnel group was affected during each stage of the grief construct.

10

Table 2. Researcher’s Hypotheses on How the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College District Affected the Employment Groups

Grief Stages Deaccreditation Event

Administrators Beliefs/ Emotions

Faculty Beliefs/Emotions Staff Beliefs/Emotions

DENIAL

Accrediting Commission notifications: Show cause and deaccreditation

Did not believe the deaccreditation would happen

Hoped the deaccreditation would be overturned through the appeals process



Felt the deaccreditation

had nothing to do with classroom instruction



ANGER

Deaccreditation appeal is denied

Felt anger toward: o The Accrediting

Commission o The Chancellor of the

California Community Colleges

o The Compton Community College District Board of Trustees members

o Local and statewide political leaders

o The Special Trustee Blamed:

o Faculty o Staff o Administrators o Former administrators






o The Special Trustee

Blamed: o Faculty o Staff o Administrators o Former administrators






o The Special Trustee Blamed:

o Faculty o Staff o Administrators o Former administrators

11

BARGAINING

Keeping the doors open

Sought guidance from: o State-wide

administrator organizations

o Other administrators in the state

o Local and statewide labor leaders

o Community members o Local and statewide

politicians Supported the special

legislation to save the institution

Requested local and statewide politicians to place pressure on the accrediting commission to overturn their decision

Sought guidance from: o State-wide faculty

organizations o Local and statewide

labor leaders o Community members o Local and statewide

politicians Work closely with the

Special Trustee to gather support for the special legislation to save the institution

Supported the special


Requested local and state-

wide politicians to place pressure on the accrediting commission to overturn their decision

Sought guidance from: o State-wide staff

organizations o Local and statewide

labor leaders o Community members o Local and statewide

politicians Supported the special


Requested local and

statewide politicians to place pressure on the accrediting commission to overturn their decision

DEPRESSION

Possible closure of the institution

Received layoff notices

Sought guidance from the President/ Superintendent and the Special Trustee regarding their future employment with the college

Concerned about how the

institution was going to provide accredited

Received layoff notices

Sought guidance from: o Faculty leadership

(Academic Senate and labor leaders)

o The division chair of their department

o The administrator who was responsible for their academic division

Received layoff notices Sought guidance from:

o Labor leaders o Immediate supervisor o The administrator,

who was responsible for their area.

o The President/ Superintendent

o The Special Trustee

12

courses during the summer and fall of 2006

Loss of hope that the

institution would be remain.

o The President/ Superintendent

o The Special Trustee Concerned if they would

have employment for the summer and fall of 2006

Loss of hope that the institution would be remain.

Concerned if they would have employment for the summer and fall of 2006.

Loss of hope that the institution would be remain.

ACCEPTANCE

Closure of the institution

Satisfied with the passage of Assembly Bill 318

Were pleased the partnership with Santa Monica College, for the summer of 2006, because they would have employment

Accepted the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College, and the agreement with El Camino College, because they were allowed to maintain their employment status while providing services for El Camino College


Were pleased the

partnership with Santa Monica College, for the summer of 2006, because they would have employment

Accepted the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College, and the agreement with El Camino College, because they were allowed to maintain their employment status while teaching El Camino College courses


Were pleased the

partnership with Santa Monica College, for the summer of 2006, because they would have employment

Accepted the


13

Statement of the Problem

The full range of issues, behavior, and questions surrounding the deaccreditation

of Compton Community College remains unclear. There are currently over 100

community colleges in the State of California, but at the time of this study, Compton

Community College is the only one under the authority of a Special Trustee. In addition,

Compton Community College District is the only community college district in the state

of California that has received a 30 million dollar line of credit from the California state

legislature to continue its operations under the auspices of special legislation, Assembly

Bill 318 (California Education Code, 2010).

Research Questions

The following three questions are explored in this research study:

1. Do the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of the Compton Community

College District employees conform to the stages of the Kubler-Ross grief

construct?

2. What variations exist in the grief process among the different employee groups of

Compton Community College District?

3. Were the stages of the grief construct functional or dysfunctional in helping the

personnel negotiate change in the institution?

Significance of the Study

This dissertation seeks to stimulate an honest and thought provoking discussion

regarding the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. This dissertation has

implications for scholars, policy makers, and higher education faculty, staff, and

administrators. The significant beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of Compton

14

Community College employees in this research study might assist other higher education

institutions in finding ways to manage their organization through the deaccreditation or

potential deaccreditation process of their institution. This research study will help model

likely changes and perhaps clarify anticipated actions, beliefs, feelings, emotions, and

perceptions of employees who are coping with the deaccreditation of their institution.

This research study establishes a new way of understanding the deaccreditation

process and the impact of deaccreditation on higher education employees. In addition,

this study will contribute to the dialogue on deaccreditation of institutions of higher

education. From this study community colleges can learn from the deaccreditation

experience of Compton Community College and, through the research findings from this

study, provide assistance to institutions prior to their deaccreditation thereby helping

them to avoid or minimize real or perceived loss.

The Study

Description. This study examined the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College through the Kubler-Ross (1969) grief construct by examining the five stages of

death and dying from the perspective of Compton Community College District

employees (i.e. faculty, staff, and administrators). For this study we were able to examine

the perspective of employees who were employed at Compton Community College prior

to the deaccreditation of the institution. Relationships established throughout the

researcher’s current employment with Compton Community College District provided

avenues for identifying and requesting permission to notify employees of this study. This

study was conducted in three phases:

15

Survey. During the first phase of the study, electronic emails were sent to all

current Compton Community College District employees who were employed at

Compton Community College from January, 2005, through September, 2006. The

researcher requested their participation in the study and their completion of an online

survey about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Each member of the

employment group was asked to complete the online survey for this phase of the study.

Through the survey, the researcher was able to identify the employment group of

participants by asking them what position they held from January, 2005, through

September, 2006. In addition, the researcher asked several questions of the employees

about their beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions towards the events that occurred

during the deaccreditation process of Compton Community College. The online survey

questions are included as Appendix A. From the completed online surveys the researcher

randomly select employees for participation in the second and third phase of this study.

Interviews. The second phase of the study consistent of one-on-one semi-

structured interviews with four employees from each of the employment groups. The

semi-structured interview questions allowed additional discussion between the

participants and the researcher. During the one-on-one interviews the researcher utilized

open-ended questions to understand more fully the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and

perceptions of employees during the deaccreditation process of Compton Community

College. The one-on-one interview questions are included as Appendix B. The one-on-

one interview sessions was conducted in rooms on the Compton Community College

District site.

16

Focus groups. The final phase of data collection included focus groups from each

employment group. Each focus group included four participants. The participants for the

focus groups were randomly selected from the survey participants by the researcher. The

focus group participants were asked a series of open-ended and semi-structured questions

to understand if the model being proposed in this study reflects the beliefs, feelings,

emotions, and perceptions of employees during the deaccreditation process of Compton

Community College. The final version of the focus groups questions is included as

Appendix C. The focus group sessions was conducted in rooms on the Compton

Community College District site.

17

CHAPTER II–REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In examining the deaccreditation of Compton Community College through the

Kubler-Ross grief construct, the researcher begins this review of the literature with the

evolution of community colleges in the United States and particularly in California. Then

the researcher explores relevant literature that examines the Kubler-Ross grief construct

for this study.

Missions and Functions of Community Colleges

The Morrill Act passed in 1862 establishing land grant colleges to provide

practical and skill-based higher education in the United States (Lonozo, 1994). By the

turn of the twentieth century the first junior colleges were established. At this time, the

purpose and mission of community colleges was to provide a low cost and accessible

alternative for students for their first two years of college/university education (Lonozo,

1994). As defined in the book American Community College, the mission of community

colleges was to provide transfer, career, general, remedial, and community education

(Cohen & Brawer, 1989). Over generations, community college education in the United

States evolved from providing liberal arts and transfer education (Lonozo, 1994) to

offering a wide variety of programs including; technical and general education,

community service (Knoell, 1982), and finally comprehensive education focusing on a

broad student clientele. By providing comprehensive education community colleges were

able to provide services to all types of students. As Knoell (1982) explained:

No longer was it possible to say that a certain type of student was the norm… The

evolution into the comprehensive community college was characterized by a vast

increase in the heterogeneity of the student body with respect to age, ethnicity,

18

readiness or ability to do college-level work, previous educational attainment,

interest and goals and objectives being pursued. (Knoell, 1982, p.7)

Currently, community colleges provide many types of educational services to students:

career education, general education, remedial education, and community education. As

the evolution of community college education began in the United States it has had a

major impact on the state of California.

Community Colleges in California

The first community college in California was established by Charles L. McLane

in 1910 in the City of Fresno. In 1921, the California Legislatures used funds from the

Federal Oil and Mineral Act, through the California Junior College Act, to create a junior

college fund (Fresno City College, 2009). These funds were used to support the

operations of a locally governed community college district which were independent of

the public high schools system (Fresno City College, 2009). The California Junior

College Act of 1921 served as a model for other states as they moved towards community

colleges becoming fiscally sound and policy-driven organizations (Vaughan, 2006). The

most significant policy that affected higher education in California, and most importantly

community colleges, was the State of California Assembly Concurrent Resolution No.

88, approved in 1959 by the California State Legislature, which resulted in the creation of

a Master Plan for Higher Education in the State of California.

The Master Plan made community colleges, for the first time, an official segment

of higher education in California and has been studied throughout the country (Carnegie

Foundation, 1970). The California Master Plan for higher education included

recommendations for the development, expansion, and integration of the facilities,

19

curriculum, and standards of higher education in community colleges, state colleges, the

University of California, and other institutions of higher education to meet the state’s

needs (Carnegie Foundation, 1967). Although the California Master Plan did not provide

specific recommendations for community colleges in California with respect to

admissions policies, the California Education Code requires community colleges to

accept any high school graduate and any other person over eighteen years of age

(California Education Code, 2010). In addition, the California Master Plan noted that

California Community Colleges were to be governed by local boards. In 1967, following

the development of the California Master Plan, the legislature created the Board of

Governors and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office to provide

statewide leadership to California's community colleges.

The Board currently has 17 members, appointed by the Governor, with the

advisement and consent of the California State Senate. Twelve members are appointed to

six-year terms and two student members, two faculty members, and one classified

member are appointed to two-year terms (California Education Code, 2010). In

California, local governing boards govern each community college district; the local

governing board members are elected by the residents within the particular governing

board district. Prior to the deaccreditation of Compton Community College, the college

was governed by Compton Community College District Board of Trustees. Currently,

residents of Compton Community College District elect members to the Board of

Trustees, however the under California Assembly Bill 61, their authority was suspended.

20

Application of the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct on Compton Community College

Hoffman and Wallace’s (2008) research on the psychological consequences of the

deaccreditation process, of Compton Community College, draws upon Elizabeth Kubler-

Ross’ Death and dying (1969) grief construct. One of the authors, Hoffman, was a

member of the Compton Community College full-time faculty prior to and during the

year of the deaccreditation. At the time of this study, Hoffman remains a part-time faculty

member at this institution. The Hoffman and Wallace (2008) research was conducted

from a personal perspective of a faculty member regarding the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College. The beliefs and emotions expressed by the faculty in

Hoffman and Wallace (2008) provide insight into personal perspectives of Compton

Community College faculty during the deaccreditation process.

Denial. Hoffman and Wallace (2008) found that, prior to the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College, faculty were in denial for many years about the capability

of the administration of the institution. According to Hoffman and Wallace (2008), the

faculty believed the financial irregularities found would be corrected, by the

administration, but those irregularities were not corrected. The faculty believed the

campus was neglected and the facilities were lacking. Hoffman and Wallace (2008)

research characterized the facilities at Compton Community College as the following:

There were things that most faculty at other schools cannot relate to, such as

unattended and filthy bathrooms, grounds littered with trash, etc. Students were

actually going home during breaks to use the bathrooms. And what little lighting

we had during the evening hours made students (and faculty) feel extremely

vulnerable. (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p. 609)

21

The faculty at Compton Community College was in denial for many years about the

capabilities of the administration and the poor state of facilities.

Furthermore, according to Hoffman and Wallace (2008), the faculty was in denial

that the deaccreditation of their institution would actually occur. Hoffman and Wallace’s

(2008) research characterized faculty beliefs and emotions during the denial follows:

We as a faculty tried to deny the possibility that our school would actually be

closed down. Still . . . the images remained of driving to school one morning to

find the perimeter gates padlocked. We frankly did not want to believe the

inevitable. There were just too many people saying to us: ‘‘It’s a bluff . . . the

state could never shut down a school . . . Don’t worry about it!’’ So we didn’t

worry about it until it was too late. Nobody wants to believe that a school could

actually close down; there are just too many potentially positive qualities about a

school to allow anything like that to happen. (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p. 609)

According to Hoffman and Wallace (2008) the faculty remained in denial about

deaccreditation of their institution “until the certified letters arrived” (Hoffman &

Wallace, 2008, p. 609). The certified letters referred to by Hoffman and Wallace (2008)

were the layoff notices the faculty received from Compton Community College by

certified mail. Hoffman and Wallace contend the faculty was in denial prior to the

deaccreditation and through March, 2006.

Anger. Hoffman and Wallace (2008) discuss in the anger stage how the denial

stage changed into faculty “resentment and anger” (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.610).

The faculty had anger towards the Accrediting Commission for the deaccreditation of

22

their institution. The faculty would rather have seen the institution placed on probation.

Hoffman and Wallace (2008) note the faculty anger towards the accrediting commission:

The faculty (and the community) became incensed that the state accreditation

team would want to place our school in jeopardy by not placing our school on

probation, but terminating the accreditation. We felt as though we were under the

microscope and that we were being picked on unfairly. (Hoffman & Wallace,

2008, p. 610)

As the faculty began to become more aware of the accreditation problems of Compton

Community College, their beliefs and emotions intensified with the anger they were

experiencing. “People felt that the school was again being targeted because of race,

ethnicity, or low income status” (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.610). Hoffman and

Wallace (2008) characterized their anger as:

We thought how can the state just come in here and arbitrarily take away our

accreditation? It will never happen . . . the community won’t allow it!’’ Other

questions were directed to anybody that would listen and included, ‘‘Why us?

Why is the state picking on Compton College when there are many, many other

schools with more serious administrative or curriculum discrepancies? (Hoffman

& Wallace, 2008, p. 610)

Furthermore, Hoffman and Wallace (2008) suggest the anger overshadowed or prevented

the faculty from examining deeper issues among themselves. According to Hoffman and

Wallace (2008), the anger prevented the faculty from finding effective solutions to their

problem which was the accreditation status of their institution.

23

During the anger stage, according to Hoffman and Wallace (2008), the faculty

had feelings of helplessness. They felt the school was “dying a slow, lingering, and

painful death” (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.611). The faculty had anger and was feeling

helplessness because they could not change what was happening to their institution.

Negotiation. The negotiation stage, Hoffman and Wallace (2008) describe how

the faculty recognized the problems of the institution. Hoffman and Wallace (2008)

explain:

We at the college now tried to negotiate with the state. We could create new

student learning outcomes (SLOs), revise our courses, improve the quality of

teaching, and so on. We were ready to jump through any hoop the state was about

to put before us. But the reality was that it was too little, too late. (Hoffman &

Wallace, 2008, p. 609)

In Hoffman and Wallace (2008), there is no timeline of when the events in the

negotiation stage occurred. According to Hoffman and Wallace (2008) some faculty

members, during this stage, were willing to try anything to re-establish the accreditation

of the institution. Some of the faculty members began to look for new employment and

some applied for positions with other institutions. In addition, some faculty members

simply ignored the problems of the institution and continued to maintain that there was

no problem and “things would be fine.” (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p. 611)

Depression. In this stage, according to Hoffman and Wallace (2008), Compton

Community College faculty began to give up hope and was depressed about the

deaccreditation of their institution. The authors state: “After weeks, months, and, in some

cases, years of trying to change or improve a health condition or failing school, people

24

just give up” (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.612). The faculty felt they did everything

possible to maintain the accreditation of their institution. According to Hoffman and

Wallace (2008), the faculty unsuccessfully appealed to the community and to the local

politicians for help. However, the faculty knew the deaccreditation was forthcoming.

Some faculty members transferred to other institutions and some accepted the college

was not going to improve. The quote below from Hoffman and Wallace (2008)

characterized the faculty beliefs and emotions during the final stage:

We soon began to feel as though the school closure was our collective destiny.

Unfortunately, in Kubler-Ross’ fourth stage of depression many people are simply

unable to move on to acceptance. This was the case with many faculty. As a

result, they transferred to other schools and simply resigned themselves to our

school never improving. (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.612)

The faculty at Compton Community College was depressed about the status of their

institution and simple lost hope the college would maintain its accreditation.

Acceptance. In the acceptance stage the faculty began to work closely with El

Camino College to make positive changes for the future (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008):

I do believe that the faculty at ECC-Compton Center has now accepted the fact

that things as they once were can never exist again. This is definitely a good thing

for all of us. We have accepted our fate and our destiny and are working to create

a better institution. The faculty, I believe, will create a stronger institution for our

community. (Hoffman & Wallace, 2008, p.612)

25

In the end, the faculty accepted the death of Compton Community College. However,

Hoffman and Wallace (2008) fail to explain why the faculty ultimately accepted the

deaccreditation of their institution.

The Hoffman and Wallace (2008) research conforms to the Kubler-Ross grief

construct. However, the researcher for this study contends all employment group’s

beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions needed to be examined to fully understand

how they conform to the grief construct. The researcher has some concerns with the

findings of Hoffman. First, the researcher found little evidence of how the research for

this study was conducted. During some points the authors uses the term “I” when

discussing the beliefs and emotions of the faculty. This may suggest the conclusions from

the Hoffman and Wallace research are largely self-reported. Second, the researcher found

no list of events to support when the faculty was experiencing each stage of the grief

construct. Third, Hoffman and Wallace (2008) do not provide evidence on how the

faculty accepted the deaccreditation of their institution.

Theoretical Framework: Kubler-Ross Grief Construct

Hoffman and Wallace (2008) provide insight into what occurred during the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College by using the Kubler-Ross (1969) grief

construct. The Hoffman and Wallace (2008) study showed how the faculty reacted to the

deaccreditation. For the purposes of this study we too used the theoretical framework of

the Kubler-Ross (1969) grief construct.

Kubler-Ross (1969) identifies the five stages of death and dying as denial, anger,

bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Kubler-Ross describes the grief stages as

experienced by terminally ill patients: The first stage is denial, during which Kubler-Ross

26

states patients feel, “No, not me, it cannot be true” (Kubler-Ross, 1969, p. 34). This stage

is characterized by Kubler-Ross (1969) as a reaction and serves as an initial reminder of

one’s mortality. Hoffman and Wallace (2008) describe this stage as, “How could this

happen to us?” because the faculty was in denial that the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College could really occur.

The second stage is anger, which Kubler-Ross describes as “displaced in all

directions and projected onto the environment” (Kubler-Ross, 1969, p. 34). Hoffman and

Wallace (2008) describe this stage as “Why are they picking on us?” According to

Hoffman and Wallace (2008), the faculty and the community were trying to understand

why the Accrediting Commission was placing Compton Community College on

probation and recommending deaccreditation of the institution.

The third stage of the grief construct is the bargaining stage. Kubler-Ross (1969)

describes this stage as when a dying person is seeking to postpone his or her death.

Differing from Kubler-Ross, Hoffman and Wallace (2008) describe the third stage as

negotiation. During this stage, Hoffman and Wallace (2008) explored among the faculty

the question “Can anyone help us?” The authors suggested that the faculty were asking

for help, and trying to do anything to avoid the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College.

The fourth stage is depression, which Kubler-Ross subdivides into two types:

reactive depression and preparatory depression. Reactive depression is associated with

the guilt from the past; preparatory depression is the thought of future loss that cannot be

avoided (Kubler-Ross, 1969). Hoffman and Wallace (2008) described the depression

27

stage among the faculty as “poor us.” During this stage the faculty gave up hope that

Compton Community College would avoid deaccreditation.

The fifth and final stage is acceptance, which Kubler-Ross characterized as a lack

of emotion. Given sufficient time for preparation, the dying can approach death neither

depressed nor angry (Kubler-Ross, 1969). Hoffman and Wallace (2008) described this

stage as “See us now!” as the faculty began to accept the deaccreditation of the institution

and move forward toward positive change.

What remains unknown from the research findings of Hoffman and Wallace

(2008) is the perspective variations among the campus personnel groups, which include

the faculty, staff, and administrators who were employed at Compton Community

College during the deaccreditation process. The researcher contends the deaccreditation

process occurred during January 31, 2005 through August 2006, after the college

received notice from the Accrediting Commission that their accreditation was being

terminated. For this study, the researcher examined the grief construct through with each

personnel group.

Critique of the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct

Since the publication of the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ On Death and Dying (1969)

several researchers have studied this model and some have provided their own critical

analysis. The Kubler-Ross model has been utilized in studies and across several academic

disciplines. In the article “Coping with Dying: Lessons that we should and should not

learn from the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross,” Corr (1993) suggests that the five stages

of death and dying are limited. Corr (1993) suggests that there is no definitive proof that

humans cope with death in five stages or that psychological processes of dying are

28

interlinked as stages in a process. However, Kelly (1988), through the analyzing of

Arthur Koestler’s book Darkness at Noon, suggests that the Kubler-Ross grief construct

can be applied to more than just death from illness. Kelly (1988) applied the Kubler-Ross

grief construct while performing a psychological analysis of the final days of the central

character in Darkness at Noon. The central character in the Darkness at Noon is an

incarcerated prisoner condemned to die. Kelly (1988) asserts that the parallels between

Kubler-Ross and the central character from Darkness at Noon are similar and the death of

the central character follows the Kubler-Ross grief construct.

Corr (1993) suggests that individuals do not die in a particular way or order. The

researcher agrees. For example, the deaccreditation of Compton Community College

occurred differently than the deaccreditation for most institutions of higher education.

Compton Community College was placed on Show Cause by the Accrediting

Commission by passing the probation and warning steps in the deaccreditation process.

According to the letter Compton Community College received from the Accrediting

Commission dated January 31, 2005, the college was placed on Show Cause following

the Commission review of the Special Visit team report on July 21, 2004 (Accrediting

Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2005). As Hoffman and Wallace

(2008) mentioned, the faculty felt that the Accrediting Commission should have placed

the College on probation. For this study, the researcher believes some of the grief

construct stages of the deaccreditation of Compton Community College overlap, which

suggests the grieving process for Compton Community College personnel occurred

differently from terminally ill patients and incarcerated prisoners condemned to die.

29

The Corr (1993) article also suggested lessons learned from Kubler-Ross grief

construct such as: (1) people who are dying have unfinished business left that needs to be

addressed; (2) we must listen to people who are coping with death, and; (3) we must learn

from those who are dying and coping in order to know ourselves. Corr (1993) suggests

that this model is inadequate because coping and dying should empower individuals and

provide individuals with the opportunity to take charge of the change process.

Relevant Research that Utilized the Kubler-Ross Grief Construct

Even though there is no conclusive proof that humans cope with death in five

stages, there have been studies that have utilized the Kubler-Ross grief construct model

on individuals and organizations. For example, Finely and Lee (1981) utilized the grief

construct while examining the impact termination has on executives. Blau (2006) and

Blau (2007) utilized the grief construct while examining victim response to

worksite/function closure. Perlman & Takacs, (1990), Schoolfield & Ordunda (1994)

Daugird & Spencer, (1996), and Kearny & Hyle, (2003) utilized the grief construct while

examining organizational change. Peca (1994) examined the individual change process in

school restructuring through the grief construct. Witcher (1987) utilized this model to

explore the experiences of parents of disabled children. Finally, Hoffman and Wallace

(2008) utilized this model to examine the experiences of Compton Community College

District faculty as they dealt with the deaccreditation of their institution.

Workforce Closure Literature that Utilized the Grief Construct. In the Finley and

Lee (1981) article “The Terminated Executive: It’s Like Dying,” the authors discuss the

stressful impact termination has on executives. Finley and Lee (1981) proposed an

outplacement counseling model based on the psychological behavior stages corporate

30

executive experience with being terminated from their positions. According to Finley and

Lee (1981), executives experience seven stages in response to being terminated from

their position. The stages proposed by Finley and Lee (1981) are similar to the Kubler-

Ross grief construct. Finely and Lee (1981) state that these stages are “sequential and

may vary in their intensity and duration” (Finley & Lee, 1981). After being terminated,

the first level of responses includes the first four stages, which Finley and Lee (1981)

describe as the Primary-Immediate Response Stage. In the first level the executive

experiences shock. During the shock stage executives are in a panic, which leads to the

executive feeling confused, which in turn may lead to their inability to think clearly at

work (Finley & Lee, 1981). The second stage is denial or debrief, similar to the Kubler-

Ross denial stage, where executives are in denial that termination could really happen to

them. The third stage is relief, which Finley and Lee (1981) describes as a sense of relief

when it does occur. Since many executives who are going to be terminated know

beforehand, for up to six months prior to being informed of their termination, they have

relief when it finally happens. The fourth stage is anger, as Finley and Lee (1981)

describes, the executive’s anger is both “inward and outward directed”, since the

executives are angry about being: “rejected, abused, and unfairly treated” (Finley & Lee,

1981). Finley and Lee states that the anger is fueled by the executives feeling frustrated

and guilty for not resolving their employment status with their employer prior to their

termination (Finley & Lee, 1981).

Finely and Lee (1981) describes the second level as the Secondary-Immediate

Response Stages. The first stage is bargaining, which is described as a stage when the

executives are attempting to reverse the termination process. According to Finley and Lee

31

(1981) the bargaining of executives is motivated by their feelings of disbelief that they

are going to be terminated. Furthermore, during the bargaining stages, the executives are

feeling guilty for allowing the possible termination to occur and they are angry for not

having the ability to save themselves from receiving a termination notice (Finley & Lee,

1981). The next stage is depression, which Finley and Lee (1981) describe as the

unfamiliar experience of executives being in a position where they are not able to make

decisions. This experience can also be described as being in a position where the decision

is out your hands. During the depression stage, executives have difficulty sleeping; they

begin to have anxiety and begin to withdraw from others at the workplace (Finley & Lee,

1981). According to Finley and Lee (1981), it would be unhealthy for executives to take a

vacation or time off during the depression stage because the time off would only add to

their depression. While on vacation the employees would continue to think about what is

happening at the workplace. The shock and depression tends to grow as the executive

experiences time away from the workplace. The final stage is acceptance and, according

Finley and Lee (1981), during this stage the executive obtains a sense of peace and is no

longer feeling depression or anger about their termination from the workplace.

Furthermore, Finley and Lee (1981) provide three decision points to assist with

the job loss experience for executives describing a “successful model for rebuilding the

executive’s ego and their self-image. In addition to providing the decision points Finley

and Lee (1981), provide counseling strategies that are associated with each of the

decision points. The first decision is placing the termination event into perspective for the

executives. During this decision point, the employees’ state of mind is in the shock,

denial and disbelief, relief, and anger stages. To assist executives in placing their

32

termination events into perspective Finley and Lee (1981) recommend the following

counseling strategies: assist them in identifying their feelings, establish trust, establish

credibility, help them prioritize their needs, and help them deal with their termination

with their family members and friends. The second decision point is for the executive to

seek and receive support and assistance. During the second decision point the executive’s

state of mind is in bargaining and depression. The type of support and assistance the

executive receives depends on the executive. However, Finley and Lee (1981) stress how

important it is for the caregiver (i.e. the outplacement counselor) to recognize and deal

with their own grieving process because this will influence the method of counseling

services they use with the terminated employee. Finley and Lee (1981) recommend the

following counseling strategies: access their family patterns, assess their “sociometric”

stability, assess their significant others as professional resources, and finally provide

them with self-help literature.

The final decision point provided by Finley and Lee (1981) is the Resumption of

Productive Strategies where the executives’ state of mind is in acceptance. In this

decision point the terminated executives begin to rebuild their “worlds through positive

physical and mental activities” (Finley & Lee, 1981). To assist executives in this decision

point, Finley and Lee (1981) recommend the following counseling strategies: assist the

terminated executives with developing a plan, help them redefine their job seeking skills,

help them develop a resume, provide them with job announcements, encourage them to

exercise and or stay fit, and assist them with their interviewing skills.

Finally, the Finley and Lee (1981) proposed outplacement counseling model was

developed for outplacement counselors who assist terminated executives. However, the

33

authors recommend that this model be used on any employee who has been terminated

because being terminated from an employment position is a “hurting process” (Finley &

Lee, 1981). With regards to this proposed study it will be interesting to explore, during

the deaccreditation process of Compton Community College, if employees received

assistance from others and what type of assistance they received while dealing with the

possible termination of their employment.

Components of the Finley and Lee (1981) study were utilized in the Blau (2006)

article “A process model for understanding victim responses to worksite/function

closure.” The central components of this model were the denial, anger, bargaining,

depression, exploration and acceptance stages. Blau (2006) discusses how denial is the

first emotion experienced during the shock to employees when they hear about the

possible worksite/function closure. The second emotion experienced by employees is

anger which, according to Blau (2006), is associated with a sense of betrayal. Employees

who experience this emotion are usually upset at their employers. Blau (2006) shows how

the employees feel with the following statement: “the employee held up their end of the

job,” i.e. showing up to work, working hard, but the employer did not”(Blau, 2006). The

bargaining emotion can be viewed as an attempt to reverse the termination progress for

employees. Similar to Hoffman and Wallace (2008), employees who are affected by

worksite/function closures are trying to do whatever it takes to keep their employment.

According to Blau (2006), during the depression emotion stage employees feel sadness

and withdrawal due to loss of control. In the exploration emotion, employees have a

sense of hope for the future. Employees feel that some type of good will come from this

opportunity. After exploration emotion then comes acceptance, which Blau (2006)

34

explains as a stage when employees are moving from destructive to constructive grieving.

Several factors are associated with this model: the personal factors affecting the grieving

process; situational factors that affect the grieving process; victim’s responses during the

closure process; perceived job alternatives; immediate victim response after closure, and

boundary conditions of the proposed closure. Both the Finley and Lee (1981) and Blau

(2006) studies provide insight into how the employees of Compton Community College

District might have been feeling during the deaccreditation process of Compton

Community College.

Organization Change Literature that Utilized the Grief Construct. Perlman and

Takacs’ (1990) article “10 Stages of Change” utilized the grief construct and added five

additional stages while examining the personal and emotional issues that are associated

with the change process. The purpose of the article was to provide assistance and help to

executives, managers, and supervisors by providing them with tools to make decisions

about how they deal with change within their own organizations. The Perlman and

Takacs (1990) article is an expanded version of the Kubler-Ross’s grief construct and

begins with the equilibrium stage. Perlman and Takacs (1990), describes the equilibrium

stage as the stage where many employees, in particular those in management positions,

have set and/or have met their personal and professional goals within the organization.

Perlman and Takacs (1990) describe these employees as individuals who are

“consciously and unconsciously vested” in the status quo. These employees are a part of

the status quo, because both their personal and professional goals within the organization

are in alignment with the goals of the organization, so the employees are more

comfortable and content (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). According to Perlman & Takacs

35

(1990), employees who identify themselves with an organization “are emotionally and

intellectually in a state of equilibrium” (Perlman & Takacs, 1990, p.33). However, when

an employee’s equilibrium is altered or they begin to feel pressured by the external events

on the status quo these employees have a hard time handling change (Perlman & Takacs,

1990). Perlman and Takacs (1990) describe several external events, such as

reorganizations due to mergers, acquisitions, corporate takeovers, new management, and

new technologies that can place pressure on an employee’s status quo. Once the status

quo has been altered by the external events the employees emotions are associated with

grieving. As Perlman and Takacs (1990), explained:

Employees who are heavily vested in the status quo, who benefited from it,

enjoyed it, created it, nurtured it, have a very hard time letting go of it. Loss of the

status quo presents not only logical, intellectual problems, but also the emotional

problems associated with grief. People grieve for the old organization, the old

people, the old ways. (Perlman & Takacs, 1990, p. 33)

For some organizations, change is a part of the process of letting go of the status quo. If

employees do not let go of their old ways then their progress toward change will be

blocked (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). Perlman & Takacs (1990) recommend that

organizations inform employees about the changes within the organization, especially

those that will impact the status quo.

The second stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is the denial stage.

In Perlman and Takacs (1990) during the denial stage the authors discuss how employees

who have more power within the organization have a tougher time handling change. For

those employees change is difficult to handle because they wish to maintain a hold on

36

their familiar patterns within the organization. These employees utilize their power within

the organization to keep the organization as they see it, this provides them with, as

Perlman and Takacs (1990) describes, as a sense of certainty, security, and power. While

trying to keep the organization as they see it, employee pressures are building and a lot of

their personal energy is being used to keep the organization as they see it (Perlman &

Takacs 1990). Perlman & Takacs (1990) recommend “during the denial phase managers

must acknowledge the legitimacy of employees’ feelings and make themselves available

to discuss the change”(Perlman & Takacs, 1990, p.35). Furthermore, Perlman & Takacs

(1990) recommend during this stage that managers and employees learn about the change

they are accepting and to build on the change together. The organization should establish

hotlines and the managers should have regular scheduled meetings to hear from the

employees. During this stage when employees begin to deny their current reality,

Perlman & Takacs (1990) recommend that managers do not isolate, judge, or agree with

these employees rather the managers should acknowledge the employees statements but

then reinforce the reality that change is occurring (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). Finally,

during this stage Perlman & Takacs (1990) recommend stress management training

seminars for everyone involved in the change process.

The second phase of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is the anger phase.

Perlman and Takacs (1990) describe employees during this phase realizing their current

reality does not meet their expectations and they do not have enough energy to maintain

the status quo, so employees begin to blame others for being in their situation or as

Perlman and Takacs (1990) describes their current “predicament.” The employees in this

stage are feeling anger, rage envy, and resentment. Perlman and Takacs (1990), explain

37

that during this phase employees feel the managers know what is making them angry and

the managers should do something to help (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). Not only are the

employees angry and blaming others their anger becomes more visible. As Perlman &

Takacs (1990) explain:

Anger becomes more and more visible as employees blame others and demand

that someone else “make things all right again”. They do not even think about

doing something to help themselves. (Perlman and Takacs, 1990, p.35)

During this phase Perlman and Takacs (1990), recommend that organizations spend time

sorting through the problems, identify if employees beliefs or values have been violated,

and identify what is making the employees and managers angry. Organizations should

recognize and accept employee’s feelings during this phase but the change process must

continue (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). Perlman and Takacs, (1990) suggest during this

phase organizations should confront and listen to employees anger by asking: (1) what

they are angry about? (2) why they are angry? (3) what do they think should be done to

solve the problems?

Furthermore, during this phase, Perlman and Takacs (1990) discuss the impact

change has on the mangers since most of the employees anger is directed towards them.

Perlman and Takacs (1990) recommend that organizations or the administration should

provide special forums so managers would have an opportunity to voice their frustration

and anger. Perlman and Takacs (1990) suggest that “mangers need reinforcement and

support in order to handle their own employees” (Perlman & Takacs. 1990, p. 35).

During this phase, Perlman and Takacs (1990) state that problem-solving skills are very

important for managers to have as they work with employees to resolve their anger.

38

The fourth stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is bargaining.

Perlman and Takacs (1990) describe employees during this phase as trying to enter into

an agreement with others to avoid the inevitable. Employees will give up sometimes in

this stage for something else in return. This type of behavior was described by Hoffman

and Wallace (2008) as negotiation. During this stage Perlman and Takacs (1990), suggest

that anger is used by employees to stop or limit the change. Perlman and Takacs (1990),

suggest that the conversation with employees during this stage focus around the term “if

only.” According to Perlman and Takacs (1990), this phase might appear to be rational,

logical, and professional, because the employees, or as Perlman Takacs (1990) describes

them as “bargainers,” may use data, graphs, and charts to support their negotiations.

However, Perlman and Takacs (1990) believe that the above tactics/ quasi-negotiations

are a mask for their true feelings. To assist organizations, or the administration, Perlman

and Takacs (1990) recommend providing managers with conflict management and win-

win negotiation skills. These skills could be provided by recommending literature,

workshops, and team building sessions for managers within the organization or the

administration.

The fifth stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is chaos. Chaos is

defined in the Webster dictionary as “an extreme confusion or disorder” (Webster New

World, 1998). The employees in this stage are full of questions and have their own sense

of insecurity has it relates to their position within the organization (Perlman & Takacs.

1990). The chaos process is a stage that will pass over time. During this stage employees

simply do not know the direction of the organization. According to Perlman and Takacs

(1990), there are no “mechanical, technical fixes available to repair matters in this stage”

39

(Perlman & Takacs, 1990, p. 35). However, Perlman and Takacs (1990), recommend that

administrators be available to listen to employees.

The sixth stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is depression. Similar

to the Kubler-Ross grief construct, Perlman and Takacs (1990) discuss two types of

depression (i.e. reactive and preparatory). Reactive depression is the fear of loss.

Preparatory depression is a tool to prepare for the impending loss. Perlman and Takacs

(1990) recommend that administrators do not wait until the last minute to change

organizations just to avoid the human problems associated with change during the

reactive depression stage Perlman and Takacs (1990), stress the importance of

administrators during reactive depression telling their employees as much as possible and

as soon as possible about the organization. Perlman and Takacs (1990) recommend

during preparatory depression administrators listen to their employees and insist that they

still complete their job related tasks.

The seventh stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is resignation.

During this stage employees finally accept the reality of the change and are no longer

resistant to change. However, employees will still need assistance from administrators

during this stage. Perlman and Takacs (1990) recommend that administrators do not

incite individuals to action. In addition, the authors recommend administrators do not

provide counterproductive or critical and cynical comments about employee’s lack of

enthusiasm because this could lead to employees moving away from acceptance and back

to some form of resistance (Perlman & Takacs, 1990).

The eighth stage of the change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is openness. In

this stage, once change is accepted personally by the employees and their values are

40

rearranged, then the employees can move forward in a new direction (Perlman & Takacs.

1990). According to Perlman and Takacs (1990) through openness, employees are more

receptive to change and are interested in learning about the change. Perlman and Takacs

(1990) recommend, during this stage, that administrators explain to employees the

procedures, policies, and regulations that are associated with the change. In addition, the

administrators should continue to explain the change as much as possible. According to

Perlman and Takacs (1990), “repetition may seem unnecessary, but it will produce good

results” (Perlman & Takacs. 1990, p.37).

The ninth stage of change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is readiness. During

this stage employees are ready and interested in exploring new events. Perlman and

Takacs (1990) describe this stage as the “emotional letting go” and the process of letting

go among employees is noticeable. Perlman and Takacs (1990) recommend that

management becomes more directive with employees and assigns them with specific

tasks. In addition, administrators should monitor employee’s tasks and their results. The

monitoring of tasks and results should be utilized as a tool to help employees better

understand and provide them with immediate feedback. It is very important that

administrators in this stage do not utilize monitoring as a way of checking for mistakes

among employees. The final stage of the change from Perlman and Takacs (1990) is re-

emergence. During this stage, change is fully operational and employees have finally let

go of their old way of operating (Perlman & Takacs, 1990). Employees in this stage

begin to reinvest themselves in the organization.

The Perlman & Takacs article provide assistance and tools to executives,

managers, and supervisors regarding how to deal with change within their organization.

41

The Schoolfield and Ordunda (1994) article “Understanding Staff Nurse Responses to

Change: Utilization of a Grief-Change Framework to Facilitate Innovation,” expands on

Perlman and Takacs (1990) by examining the change that occurred by opening a 51 bed

oncology unit in a large Midwestern hospital. In denial stage many nurses verbalized that

it was impossible to do all these “new” jobs that was associated with the new hospital. In

addition during the denial stage the staff was denying their role was changing and they

were not interested in seeing new procedures implemented. The Clinical Nursing

Specialist, during this stage, provided the staff with the opportunity to verbalize their

feeling. In the anger stage the staff was angry and resentful because they felt the

proposed change would mean additional work and that it was unrealistic. In addition,

during the anger stage, the staff felt that the additional work was being forced on them by

outside consultants or from their supervisors without their input (Schoolfield & Ordunda,

1994). The Clinical Nursing Specialist, during this stage, would legitimize the staff

feelings, and remind them that they were accountable for certain job-related activities.

Similar to Perlman and Takacs (1990), during the bargaining stage, they utilized the “if

only” with their supervisors to avoid the change that was occurring. The Clinical Nursing

Specialist, during this stage, reminded the staff of the rationale for the change.

In the chaos stage, the staff finally realized that the innovations that had been

established at the new hospital were not going away. In the oncology unit, Schoolfield &

Ordunda (1994) described the confusion among the employees that was further protested

by the resignation of the unit manager. During this stage the staff voiced their feelings of

being powerless, they felt a sense of insecurity, and had a sense of loss direction

(Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994). The Clinical Nursing Specialist encouraged the staff to

42

be constructive and actively solve problems by utilizing the new skills and knowledge

they obtained. According to Schoolfield & Ordunda (1994), as staff witnessed the

positive changes and their results they then became re-energized about their work. In the

depression stage, the staff employees began to as Schoolfield & Ordunda (1994)

described “mourn for the past.” However, in this article, the authors noted that the

resignation stage was difficult to distinguish from the depression stage (Schoolfield &

Ordunda, 1994). The depression and resignation stages were also observed in this study,

but only observed among a few employees. In addition, the depression and resignation

stages were not observed in a group setting. The Clinical Nursing Specialist in the

depression and resignation stages continued to remind staff that the change to the patient-

focused care would hold them accountable for the changes within their working

environment (Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994).

During the openness and readiness stages, the staff began to internalize the

change that was occurring and the change became a part of their daily role within the

organization (Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994). In addition, during these stages, the staff

began to request additional information regarding the procedures. The Clinical Nursing

Specialist accommodated their request (Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994), even though the

same information was provided during the beginning stages of the change process.

Interest among the staff increased during these two stages and it was evident when staff

involvement on committees increased to the level prior to the implementation of the new

patient-focus care (Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994).

Finally, in the re-emergence stage, staff began to make their own decisions and

felt they were being held accountable for their actions. The authors suggest that the

43

Clinical Nursing Specialist should provide professional growth/leadership opportunities

to the staff (Schoolfield & Ordunda, 1994). The Schoolfield and Ordunda (1994) study

provides insight on how the Perlman & Takacs (1990) framework on the change process

could be used in studying change of employees and not just executives.

Perlman and Takacs (1990), and Schoolfield and Ordunda (1994), utilized the

forms of the grief construct in examining organizations. Kearny and Hyle’s (2003)

article: “The Grief Cycle and Educational Change: The Kubler-Ross Contribution,”

utilized the grief construct in an attempt to analyze the emotional impact of change on

individuals within an educational organization. This study was conducted at a technology

training school where the district recently hired an assistant superintendent who the

authors describe as one of their own. The Assistant Superintendent was raised in the

community where the study was conducted. The Assistant Superintendent was viewed as

the possible heir apparent to the Superintendent position. The new Assistant

Superintendent brought in new philosophies and practices that resulted in many changes.

For their study, Kearny and Hyle (2003) examined the emotional impact of the

new changes by the Assistant Superintendent on the employees of the school and the state

changes to the technology school system. This study found that most of the employees

viewed the changes as good, but Kearny and Hyle (2003) found that many of the changes

were still associated with some type of loss by the employees.

Although research exists on the Kubler-Ross grief construct, this research has not

examined the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of employees during the

deaccreditation process of their institutions. This study explored the recommendations for

future research from Kearny and Hyle (2003), which was to ask participants to speak to

44

how their experience fit or did not fit those grief models and compare their responses to

existing models. Kearny and Hyle (2003) suggest this would allow better clarification of

the grief model. During the focus group interviews for this study, the researcher asked

each employment group: Does the model being proposed in this study about the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College conform to the Kubler-Ross grief

construct? By exploring this question the researcher is able to understand from the study

participants if the model being presented actually reflects their beliefs, feelings, emotions,

and perceptions during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

45

CHAPTER III–METHODOLOGY

The research design used in this study was an exploratory case study. According

to Yin (1994), a case study is an “empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon within its real life context, especially when the boundaries between

phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p. 13). This case study methodology

focused on the “how” and “why” of the problem, rather than seeking to determine cause

and effect. Creswell (1998) describes a case study as the “exploration of a ‘bounded

system’ or case over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple

sources of information rich in context” (p. 61). This study, the case studied was the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

Site

The site for this case study is Compton Community College District, located in

the city of Compton, California, which is also located in Los Angeles County. Compton

Community College District included one college, Compton Community College, serving

the communities of Carson, Compton, Enterprise, North Long Beach, Lynwood,

Paramount, and Willowbrook. At the time of this study, Compton Community College

District is the only community college district under state receivership and administered

by a state appointed Special Trustee as authorized by Assembly Bill 61 and extended by

Assembly Bill 318. During the 2005-2006 academic year, Compton Community College

had an enrollment headcount of 10,246 year (California Community College Data Mart,

2009). Of those students, 47% and 48.9% were Latino and African American,

respectively (California Community College Data Mart, 2009). The California

Community College Chancellor’s Office does not define the size of a college by

46

enrollment headcount because of the large number of part-time students attending

community colleges. Size of an institution is determined by Full Time Equivalent

Students, also referred to as FTES. FTES is calculated by student enrollments in 12 units

of coursework, the requirement to be considered a full time student. Each 12 units of

enrollment is equivalent to 1 FTES. Compton Community College reported 4,923.37

credit FTES and 57.35 non-credit FTES to the California Community College System

Office for the 2005-2006 school year (California Community College Data Mart, 2009).

Compton Community College District is located in the city of Compton. The city

of Compton is an urban community with nearly 100,000 residents. The population in the

city of Compton consist of 56.8% Hispanic or Latino; 40.3 % Black or African

American; 1.1% Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 7% Native American or Alaskan

Native, and the remaining population consisting of Asian, White, or other race (City of

Compton, 2009)

Participants

Participants in this study included administrators, faculty, and staff who were

employed during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Potential

participants for this study received an email from the researcher requesting their

participation. Included in the email correspondence to the potential participants was the

web link to an online survey. After reading the study information sheet on the web link,

potential participants were asked to participate. If the potential participants choose to

participate in the study, they were then directed to the online survey questions. For the

one-on-one interviews and focus group sessions, the researcher randomly selected

participants from each of the employment groups who completed the online survey. For

47

the selection of the one-on-one interview and the focus group participants, the researcher

employed informal stratified sampling by taking into account gender, ethnicity, and work

department in order to approximate a representative sample. During the one-on-one

interview and focus group sessions the researcher obtained consent forms from the

participants. In addition, prior to asking the first questions during the one-on-one

interview and focus group sessions, the researcher asked each participant whether they

agreed to participate in this study. After receiving participants answer to the above

question, the researcher began to ask the one-on-one interview and focus group questions

to the participants.

Data Collection

Three data collection methods were used in accordance with standard case study

procedures. First, the researcher administered an online survey to Compton Community

College District employees who were employed with the district from January, 2005

through September, 2006. The online survey was designed using techniques suggested by

Bradburn, Sudman and Wansink (2004) in the book Asking Questions. The online survey

consisted primarily of multiple-choice or Likert scale questions and the online survey

provided opportunity for open-ended comments. The researcher asked employees to

complete the online survey between November 7, 2010 and December 22, 2010. The

original deadline for the online survey to be completed was November 22, 2010.

However, due to a low initial participation the deadline was extended to December 22,

2010. A second email correspondence was sent to the potential participants, informing

the potential participants that the deadline to complete the online survey was extended.

48

Included in the second email correspondence to the potential participants was the web

link to online survey

Second, the researcher conducted one-on-one interviews with four employees

from each of the employment groups. Each one-on-one interview participant received an

email correspondence from the researcher requesting their participation in the one-on-one

interview sessions. In total, the researcher conducted 12 one-on-one interview sessions.

The one-on-one interviews were conducted between December 1, 2010 and December

22, 2010.

Third, the researcher conducted focus groups with administrators, faculty, and

staff. The focus group sessions were conducted between January 3, 2011 and February

22, 2011. Each focus group participant received an email from the researcher requesting

their participation in the focus group sessions. Four employees from each employment

group participated in the focus groups sessions. In total, 12 employees participated in the

focus group sessions with the researcher. The administrator focus group and the faculty

focus group participants had some overlap with the participants in the one-on-one

interview sessions. The online survey questions, one-on-one interviews questions, and

focus group questions are included as Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C.

Interviews

The one-on-one interviews were a key component in this study. During the one-

on-one interview sessions the participants provided insight into their beliefs, feelings,

emotions, and perceptions during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

Participants met with the researcher at an agreed upon time and location for their one-on-

one interview session. The one-on-one interviews lasted approximately thirty-five

minutes and were conducted between December 1, 2010 and December 22, 2010. The

49

one-on-one interview questions were semi-structured, as the researcher had a basic list of

relevant questions but in some cases the researcher altered and/or modify the questions

depending on the content and issues rose during the interview. All one-on-one interviews

were tape-recorded with the permission of all participants, except one (i.e. Administrator

# 4), who requested that their interview session not be recorded. Tape-recorded

interviews were transcribed for the data analysis component of this study. After the one-

on-one interviews were transcribed the researcher requested each one-on-one interview

participant to review their interview transcription and verify their responses to the

interview questions.

Focus Groups

The researcher conducted three focus group sessions, one for each employment

group. During the focus group sessions, the participants provided insight into their and

other employees from their employment group beliefs, feelings, emotions, and

perceptions during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. For the focus

group sessions the participants met with the researcher at an agreed upon time and in a

conference room, except one (i.e. staff), was conducted in the researchers office on the

Compton Community College District site. The focus group sessions lasted

approximately forty-five minutes and were conducted between January 1, 2011 and

February 22, 2011. The focus group questions were semi-structured, as the researcher had

a basic list of relevant questions, but in some cases the researcher altered and/or modify

the questions depending on the content and issues raised during the focus group session.

Tape-recorded focus group sessions were transcribed for the data analysis component of

50

this study. After the focus group sessions were transcribed, the researcher requested each

focus group participant to review the focus group transcription and verify their responses.

Data Analysis Plan

The data analysis for this study included three components. The first phase, was

the analysis of the study participants’ responses to the online survey questions. The

researcher analyzed the employee responses to the online survey questions by their

employment group (administrators, faculty, and staff). The online survey had 39 items,

which included 9 demographic questions, with the remaining questions aimed at

discovering the employees’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions during the

following grief construct stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance

of the grief construct. Each of the online survey questions were coded and categorized as

one of the grief construct stages.

The online survey questions provide insight into the first and second research

questions for this study. The demographic information requested in the online survey

included current job classification, job classification during 2005-2006 academic year,

years of employment with Compton Community College District, gender, ethnicity,

whether respondents attended Compton Community College as a student, if a family

members attended Compton Community College, and if the employee lived within the

Compton Community College service area.

The second phase of the data analysis began with the transcription of the one-on-

one interview sessions. Once the one-one interviews were completed, the content was

coded by themes. The themes from the one-on-one interview were coded and then

categorized into the following grief construct stages: denial, anger, bargaining,

51

depression, and acceptance. These categories were then used to report the study findings

and were compared to the findings from the online survey results. The detailed

information gathered from the study participants provided the researcher with greater

insight into their beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions during the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College. In addition, the information gathered provided the

researcher with insight to answer the first and second research questions for this study.

The third phase of the data analysis was the transcription of the focus group

sessions. Once the focus group sessions were completed, the content was coded by

themes. The themes that emerged from the sessions were categorized into the following

three categories: grief construct, assistances to other institutions, and future directions.

These three categories were used to report the study findings from the focus group

sessions. The detailed information gathered from the focus group participants provided

the researcher with greater insight into the participants thoughts and feelings and

addressed the researcher’s hypothesis concerning how their thoughts and feelings during

the deaccreditation of Compton Community College could assist other institution of

higher education that are on the path to deaccreditation. Finally, the focus group

participants provided the researcher with insight into future directions for this research

study.

52

CHAPTER IV–FINDINGS

In this chapter, the researcher presents data from the online survey, one-on-one

interview sessions, and focus group sessions to address the following three research

questions:



construct?





The first set of data presented is the demographic composition of the research study

participants. The second set of data presented in this chapter consists of results from the

online survey. The third data set presents the one-on-one interview results, and the fourth

and final set of data presents the focus group session results. The second, third, and fourth

sets of data are used to answer the three research questions explored in this study. In

addition, the second, third, and fourth sets of data are used by the researcher to

understand the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of employees during the


53

Study Participants Demographic Composition

The demographic composition of the sample (n = 55) is presented in Tables 3

through 10. Table 3 displays the employment group profile for all study participants

during the 2005-2006 academic year. In this study, half (50.9%), of the study participants

were staff at Compton Community College during the 2005-2006 academic year.

Approximately, one-third were faculty, and the remainder were administrators.

Table 3. 2005-2006 Study Participants Employment Group Employment Group Percentage (n=55)

Staff 50.9% Full-time Faculty 32.7% Part-time Faculty 1.8% Administrator 14.5%

Since the 2005-2006 school year, two full-time faculty members became

administrators and one administrator became a full-time faculty member. Table 4

displays the changes in job classifications for the study participants since the 2005-2006

year.

Table 4. 2010-2011 Study Participants Employment Group Employment Group Percentage (n=55)

Staff 50.9 % Full-time Faculty 30.9 % Part-time Faculty 1.8% Administrator 16.4 %

Table 5 displays the study participants’ duration of employment with Compton

Community College District. At the time of the study, the majority of the study

participants had been employed with Compton Community College District between 6

and 10 years.

54

Table 5. Years of Employment with Compton Community College District (CCCD) All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)

< 4 years 14.5% 4-5 years 14.5 % 6-10 years 32.7% 11-15 years 10.9 % 16-20 years 16.4% 21-25 years 3.6% >26 7.3% Staff Percentage (n=28)

< 4 years 14.3% 4-5 years 25.0% 6-10 years 39.3% 11-15 years 7.1 % 16-20 years 10.7% 21-25 years 3.6%

Faculty Percentage (n=18)

< 4 years 11.1% 4-5 years 5.6 % 6-10 years 22.2% 11-15 years 22.2 % 16-20 years 16.7% >26 22.2%

Administrator Percentage (n=8)

< 4 years 12.5% 6-10 years 37.5% 16-20 years 37.5% 21-25 years 12.5%

Table 6 displays the gender of the study participants during the 2005-2006 year.

At the time of the study, the majority (58.2%) of the study participants’ were female, and

the gender breakdown varied by employment group: three-fourths (75.0%) of the staff

were female and the majority (61.1%) of the faculty were male.

55

Table 6. Gender of Study Participants All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)

Female 58.2 % Male 41.8%

Staff Percentage (n=28)

Female 75.0% Male 25.0%





Table 7 displays the ethnicity of the study participants. At the time of this study,

the majority of the study participants were Black or African-American. Again,

demographic factors varied by employment groups: 75% of the administrators were

Black or African-American, and whereas a much smaller percentage of faculty, 38.9%,

were Black or African-American.

56

Table 7. Ethnicity of Study Participants All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)

American Indian or Alaska Native 3.6% Asian 7.3% Black or African-American 56.4% Hispanic/Latino 27.3% White 14.5% Other 3.6%


American Indian or Alaska Native 7.1% Asian 3.6% Black or African-American 60.7% Hispanic/Latino 39.3% White 10.7% Other 3.6%


Asian 16.7% Black or African-American 38.9% Hispanic/Latino 16.7% White 22.2% Other 5.6%


Black or African-American 75.0% Hispanic/Latino 12.5% White 12.5%

As shown in Table 8, 45.5% of the study participants had taken classes at

Compton Community College. At the time of this study, the majority (57.1%) of the staff

had taken classes at Compton Community College. However, three-fourths (75.0%) of

the administrators had not taken classes at Compton Community College.

57

Table 8. Study Participants Attended Classes at Compton Community College (CCC) All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)

Attended CCC 45.5% Did not attend CCC 54.5%







Table 9 displays the proportion of study participants who had a family member

that attended Compton Community College. About half (49.1%) of the participants had a

family member that attended Compton Community College. A slightly higher proportion,

57.1%, of the staff had a family member that attended Compton Community College.

58

Table 9. Study Participants Who Family Member Attended Compton Community College (CCC) All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)








Table 10 displays who of study participants lived within the Compton Community

College District service area. At the time of the study, 32.7% of the study participants’

lived within the service area. A somewhat higher proportion, 46.4%, of the staff lived

within the Compton Community College District.

59

Table 10. Study Participants Who Live In the Compton Community College District (CCCD) Service Area All Study Participants Percentage (n=55)

Lived within CCCD 32.7% Did not lived within CCCD 67.3%






Did not lived within CCCD 100%

Online Survey Results

In order to analyze the study participants’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and

perceptions during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College, the researcher

coded and categorized responses to the online survey questions as indicators of the grief

construct stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The online

survey results are presented in this section by the grief construct stages.

Denial. Tables 11 through 14, represent the study participants’ responses to the

online survey questions that examine the denial stage of the grief construct. Table 11

displays the response of the study participants when they learned of the Accrediting

Commission decision to place Compton Community College on Show Cause on January

31, 2005. At the time of this study, three-fourths (75.5%) of the study participants knew

the reasons why the Compton Community College was place on Show Cause by the

Accrediting Commission.

60

Table 11. Study Participants Understanding of the Accrediting Commission Decision All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Knew the reasons why the college was placed on Show Cause 75.5% Did not know why the college was placed on Show Cause 18.9% Was not aware the college was placed on Show Cause 5.7%




Knew the reasons why the college was placed on Show Cause 77.8% Did not know why the college was placed on Show Cause 22.2%



Table 12 displays the thoughts of the study participants when they learned of the

Accrediting Commission deaccreditation decision on June 17, 2005. Of the study

participants, about half (49.1%) did not believe the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College would happen. A slightly higher proportion of the faculty, 55.6%,

did not believe the deaccreditation of Compton Community College would occur.

61

Table 12. Study Participant Beliefs When They Learned About the Deaccreditation Decision All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Believed the deaccreditation would happen 45.3% Did not believe the deaccreditation would happen 49.1% Was not aware of the deaccreditation decision 5.7%




Believed the deaccreditation would happen 44.4% Did not believe the deaccreditation would happen 55.6%



Table 13 displays the reasons the study participants believed Compton

Community College was deaccreditated. In Table 13, campus neglect is defined as

untended and filthy bathrooms, and grounds littered with trash. Of the study participants,

more than two-thirds believed the reasons Compton Community College was

deaccreditated was the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees (71.7%)

and the Administration (75.5%). However, only 37.5% of the administrators believed the

administration was the reason Compton Community College was deaccreditated, and

62.5% of the administrators believed the Compton Community College District Board of

Trustees was the cause of the deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

62

Table 13. Reasons the Study Participants Believed Compton Community College Was Deaccreditated All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Poor quality of classroon instruction 15.1% Campus neglect 13.2% Administration 75.5% CCC District Board of Trustee members 71.7% Poor facilities (old buildings, poor lighting) 18.9% None of the above 5.7% Other 28.3%


Poor quality of classroon instruction 19.2% Campus neglect 11.5% Administration 80.8% CCC District Board of Trustee members 76.9% Poor facilities(old buildings, poor lighting) 23.1% None of the above 3.8% Other 23.1%


Poor quality of classroon instruction 11.1% Campus neglect 16.7% Administration 83.3% CCC District Board of Trustee members 66.7% Poor facilities(old buildings, poor lighting) 16.7% Other 27.8%


Poor quality of classroon instruction 12.5% Administration 37.5% CCC District Board of Trustee members 62.5% None of the above 25.0% Other 37.5%

Table 14 displays study participants’ beliefs when they learned Compton

Community College submitted its “Statement of Reasons” in support of its

deaccreditation appeal to the Accrediting Commission on August 5, 2005. The majority

(52.8%) believed the Compton Community College appeal would be accepted by the

63

Accrediting Commission. However, half (50.0%) of the administrators believed the

Compton Community College appeal would be denied by the Accrediting Commission.

Table 14. Study Participants’ Beliefs About Compton Community College (CCC) Appeal to the Accrediting Commission. All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Believed the appeal would be accepted 52.8% Believed the appeal would be denied 41.5% Was not aware the college submitted an appeal 5.7%






Believed the appeal would be accepted 37.5% Believed the appeal would be denied 50.0% Was not aware of college submitted an appeal 12.5%

Anger. Tables 15 through 19, represent the study participants’ responses to the

online survey questions that examine the anger stage of the grief construct. Table 15

displays the study participants thoughts when they learned Compton Community College

deaccreditation appeal was denied by the Accrediting Commission on November 18,

2005. Of the study participants, about half (52.8%) were surprised when the appeal

decision was denied by the Accrediting Commission. A slightly higher proportion of the

faculty, 61.1%, was surprised when the appeal decision was denied by the Accrediting

Commission.

64

Table 15. Study Participants Beliefs About the Compton Community College (CCC) Deaccreditation After the Appeal Was Denied All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Knew the appeal would be denied 41.5% Surprised when the appeal decision was denied 52.8% Was not aware of the decision 5.7%




Knew the appeal would be denied 38.9% Surprised when the appeal decision was denied 61.1%



Table 16 displays the percentage of the study participants, who felt angry about

the Accrediting Commission deaccreditation decision of Compton Community College

between the months of November, 2005 and February, 2006. Two-thirds (66.0%) of the

study participants felt angry about the Accrediting Commission deaccreditation decision.

However, a high proportion of the faculty (77.8%), and the administrators (87.5%) were

angry about the Accrediting Commission deaccreditation decision compared to slightly

more than half (53.8%) of the staff who felt angry about the Accrediting Commission

deaccreditation decision.

65

Table 16. Study Participants Who Felt Angry About the Accrediting Commission Decision All Study Participants Percentage (n=53)

Felt angry about the deaccreditation decision 66.0% Did not feel angry about the deaccreditation decision 34.0%







Table 17 displays who the study participants felt angry towards during the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Four out of five (79.4%) were angry

towards the Compton Community College Board of Trustee members and more than half

(61.8%) of the study participants felt anger towards the Accrediting Commission because

of the deaccreditation decision. However, only 42.9%, of the administrators felt angry

towards the Accrediting Commission because of the deaccreditation decision.

66

Table 17. Targets of Study Participants Anger Because of the Deaccreditation Decision of Compton Community College (CCC) All Study Participants Percentage (n=34)

Accrediting Commission 61.8% Chancellor of the California Community Colleges 38.2% CCC District Board of Trustee Members 79.4% Local and statewide political leaders 32.4% Special Trustee 20.6% Other 23.5%







In association with the anger stage, one research hypothesis was that each

employment group (administrators, faculty, and staff) blamed others for the

deaccreditation of the Compton Community College. Table18 displays the distribution of

study participants who blamed someone else because of the Accrediting Commission

deaccreditation decision between the months of November, 2005, and February, 2006.

Over two-thirds (71.2%) blamed someone because of the deaccreditation decision.

67

Table 18. Blamed Someone Because of the Deaccreditation Decision All Study Participants Percentage (n=52)

Blamed someone 71.2% Did not blame someone 28.8%







Table 19 presents whether or not the study participants blamed someone

following the deaccreditation decision of Compton Community College between of

November, 2005, and February, 2006. Of the study participants, three-fourths (86.1%)

blamed the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees for the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College. In addition, over half of the study

participants blamed former administrators (63.9%) and half blamed the Accrediting

Commission (50.0%) for the deaccreditation. However, 100% of the administrators

blamed the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees and the former

administrators for the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

68

Table 19. Targets of Study Participants Blame Following the Compton Community College (CCC) Deaccreditation Decision All Study Participants Percentage (n=36)

Faculty 11.1% Staff 11.1% Administrators 36.1% Former Administrators 63.9% CCC District Board of Trustees 86.1% Accrediting Commission 50.0% Chancellor of the California Community Colleges 36.1% Other 11.1%


Faculty 17.6% Staff 17.6% Administrators 47.1% Former Administrators 58.8% CCC District Board of Trustees 82.4% Accrediting Commission 41.2% Chancellor of the California Community Colleges 35.3% Other 23.5%


Faculty 7.1% Staff 7.1% Administrators 35.7% Former Administrators 57.1% CCC District Board of Trustees 85.7% Accrediting Commission 57.1% Chancellor of the California Community Colleges 28.6%


Former Administrators 100% CCC District Board of Trustees 100% Accrediting Commission 60.0% Chancellor of the California Community Colleges 60.0%

Bargaining. Tables 20 through 22 represent the study participants’ responses to

survey questions that examine the bargaining stage of the grief construct. For this study,

the researcher hypothesized that during the bargaining stage employees sought assistance

from their union leadership, local and state-wide politicians, community members, and

69

state-wide organizations they were affiliated with, to help save Compton Community

College from being deaccreditated. On questions associated with the bargaining stage,

there was a low response rate among the study participants. If participants did not

indicate they sought guidance or assistance during the bargaining stage, their responses

were not tabulated. The main reason for the low response rate was that 71.2% of the

study participants indicated that they did not seek assistance or guidance during the

deaccreditation process of Compton Community College. The low response rate implies

that employees seeking guidance or assistance did not figure very prominently in the

bargaining stage of the grief construct for the employment groups during the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College

Among study participants who did seek guidance or assistance during the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College, more than half sought guidance or

assistance from community members (53.8%) and from their local and statewide

politicians (53.8%).

70

Table 20. Study Participants Who Sought Assistance or Guidance During the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College (CCC) All Study Participants Percentage (n=13)

Statewide organization they were affiliated with 30.8% Colleagues throughout the state 38.5% Local and statewide labor leaders 30.8% Community members 53.8% Local and statewide politicians 53.8% Other 46.2%


Colleagues throughout the state 33.3% Local and statewide labor leaders 66.7% Community members 100% Local and statewide politicians 66.7% Other 33.3%


Statewide organization they were affiliated with 50.0% Colleagues throughout the state 25.0% Local and statewide labor leaders 25.0% Community members 37.5% Local and statewide politicians 62.5% Other 50.0%


Colleagues throughout the state 100% Local and statewide labor leaders 66.7% Community members 50.0% Other 50.0%

As Table 20 illustrates, faculty participants sought guidance from their statewide

organizations and from their local and statewide politicians at a higher rate compared to

the other employment groups.

The researcher’s second assertion was that during the bargaining stage employees

were expecting special legislation, Assembly Bill 318, to save the Compton Community

College from being deaccreditated. Table 21 displays who of the study participants were

71

familiar with Assembly Bill 318. Over three-fourths (80.4%) were familiar with

Assembly Bill 318 compared to 19.6% who were not familiar with Assembly Bill 318.

Table 21. Study Participants Who Were Familiar With Assembly Bill 318 All Study Participants Percentage (n=51)

Familiar with Assembly Bill 318 80.4% Was not familiar with Assembly Bill 318 19.6%






Familiar with Assembly Bill 318 100% Table 22 displays who of the study participants’ supported Assembly Bill 318. Of

the study participants, over three-fourths (80.0%) supported Assembly Bill 318. A

slightly higher proportion (92.9%) of the faculty supported Assembly Bill 318. What is of

particular interest to the researcher, 31.6% of the staff did not support Assembly Bill 318

compared to 20.0% of all study participants.

72

Table 22. Study Participants Who Supported Assembly Bill 318 All Study Participants Percentage (n=40)

Supported Assembly Bill 318 80.0% Did not support Assembly Bill 318 20.0%







The researcher’s third assertion was that the employees expected, through their

local and state-wide politicians, to exert political pressure on the Accrediting

Commission to overturn the previous decisions. However, this assertion was not

supported by the study participants’ comment responses, because in the comment

responses the majority of the participants explained why they supported Assembly Bill

318.

Depression. Tables 23 through 26 represent the online survey participants’

responses to survey questions that examine the depression stage of the grief construct. In

the hypotheses for the depression stage of the grief construct, the researcher asserted that

employees appeared to be in depression about the possible loss of their employment after

receiving their layoff notice. Table 23 displays the study participants’ thoughts and

feelings when they received their layoff notice dated March 26, 2006. Two-thirds

(68.6%) felt sad and discouraged after receiving their layoff notice. A slightly higher

73

proportion, (83.3%) of the faculty felt sad and discouraged after receiving their layoff

notice.

Table 23. Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Received Their Layoff Notice Dated March 26, 2006 All Study Participants Percentage (n=51)

Felt sad and discouraged 68.6% Did not feel sad and discouraged 19.6% Do not remember their thoughts and feelings 11.8%






Felt sad and discouraged 66.7% Did not feel sad and discouraged 33.3%

With respect to the depression stage, the researcher hypothesized that each

employment group gave up hope that the institution would survive after they received

there layoff notice. Table 24 displays who of the study participants lost hope that

Compton Community College would remain open after they received there layoff notice.

Of the study participants, two-thirds (66.7%) did not give up hope that their institution

would survive after they received their layoff notice.

74

Table 24. Study Participants Who Lost Hope That the College Would Remain Open After They Received Their Layoff Notice All Study Participants Percentage (n=51)

Lost hope 21.6% Did not lose hope 66.7% Do not remember their thoughts and feelings 11.8%






Lost hope 16.7% Did not lose hope 83.3%

The researcher also hypothesized that all employment groups began to seek

guidance regarding their employment status at Compton Community College. Table 25

displays who among the study participants sought guidance about their future

employment after receiving their layout notice. More than half (60.8%) did not seek

guidance about their future employment after receiving their layoff notice.

75

Table 25. Study Participants Who Sought Guidance About Their Future Employment After Receiving Their Layoff Notice All Study Participants Percentage (n=51)

Sought guidance 23.5% Did not seek guidance 60.8% Do not recall 15.7%







There was a low response rate among the study participants who sought guidance

after receiving their lay-off notice. The low response rate implies that employees seeking

guidance after receiving their layoff notice did not figure very prominently in the

depression stage of the grief construct for the employment groups. Table 26 shows that

7.7% of the study participants sought guidance from their statewide organization that

they were affiliated with, 23.1% from colleagues throughout the State, 15.4% from their

immediate supervisor at that time, 46.2% from campus leaders, and 15.4% from the

administrator responsible for their department.

76

Table 26. Study Participants Sought Guidance From After Receiving Their Layoff Notice All Study Participants Percentage (n=13)

Statewide organizations they were affliated with 7.7% Colleagues throughout the state 23.1% Immediate supervisor 15.4% Campus labor leaders 46.2% Community members 15.4% Administrator responsible for their department 15.4% Other 38.5%


Colleagues throughout the state 20.0% Immediate supervisor 40.0% Campus labor leaders 40.0% Community members 20.0% Administrator responsible for their department 20.0% Other 40.0%


Statewide organizations they were affliated with 16.7% Colleagues throughout the state 16.7% Campus labor leaders 66.7% Community members 16.7% Other 33.3%


Colleagues throughout the state 50.0% Administrator responsible for their department 50.0% Other 50.0%

Acceptance. Tables 27 through 30 represent the online survey participants’

responses to survey questions that examine the acceptance stage of the grief construct.

Table 27 displays the study participants thoughts and feelings when they learned about

the agreement with Santa Monica College to provide courses on the Compton

Community College District site during the summer of 2006. The researcher

hypothesized that the employment groups were pleased with this agreement Santa

Monica College, because they would have employment for the summer of 2006. Of the

77

study participants, a large majority (82.0%) was pleased when they learned about the

agreement with Santa Monica College for the summer of 2006. An even higher

proportion, 94.4%, of the faculty was pleased when they learned about the agreement

with Santa Monica College for the summer of 2006.

Table 27. Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feeling When They Learned About the Agreement With Santa Monica College All Study Participants Percentage (n=50)

Pleased 82.0% Displeased 4.0% Neither pleased nor displeased 10.0% Not aware of this agreement 4.0%


Pleased 72.0% Displeased 4.0% Neither pleased nor displeased 20.0% Not aware of this agreement 4.0%


Pleased 94.4% Displeased 5.6%


Pleased 83.3% Not aware of this agreement 16.7%

Table 28 displays participants’ thoughts and feeling when they learned that

Assembly Bill 318 was signed by the Governor on June 30, 2006. This allowed for

educational services to be provided on the Compton Community College site by an

accredited college. Almost 75% of the participants were pleased when they Assembly

Bill 318 was signed by the Governor of the State of California on June 30, 2006. A

slightly higher proportion, 83.3%, of administrators were pleased when Assembly Bill

318 was signed by the Governor of the State of California on June 30, 2006.

78

Table 28. Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Learned Assembly Bill 318 Was Signed by the Governor of California All Study Participants Percentage (n=50)

Pleased 74.0% Displeased 8.0% Not aware of Assembly Bill 318 at that time 18.0%






Pleased 83.3% Not aware of Assembly Bill 318 at that time 16.7%

Table 29 displays study participants’ thoughts and feelings when they learned of

the agreement with El Camino Community College. The researcher believed that the

employment groups had accepted the death of the institution because their employment

status would remain while providing services for El Camino College. Of the study

participants, more than two-thirds (68.0%) were pleased with the agreement with El

Camino College. An even higher proportion, 83.3%, of the administrators were pleased

with the agreement with El Camino College.

79

Table 29. Study Participants’ Thoughts and Feelings When They Learned About the Agreement with El Camino College All Study Participants Percentage (n=50) Pleased 68.0% Displeased 16.0% Neither pleased nor displeased 16.0%

Staff Percentage (n=25) Pleased 68.0% Displeased 16.0% Neither pleased nor displeased 16.0%

Faculty Percentage (n=18) Pleased 61.1% Displeased 22.2% Neither pleased nor displeased 16.7%

Administrator Percentage (n=6) Pleased 83.3% Neither pleased nor displeased 16.7%

Table 30 displays who of the study participants accepted the possible closure of

Compton Community College during the 2005-2006 year. Half (50%) accepted the

possible closure of Compton Community College during the 2005-2006 year.

80

Table 30. Study Participants Who Did or Did Not Accept the Possible Closure of Compton Community College (CCC) during the 2005-2006 year All Study Participants Percentage (n=50)

Accepted the possible closure 50.0% Did not accept at the time but later accepted the closure 12.0% Still do not accept the closure 38.0%




Accepted the possible closure 55.6% Did not accept at the time but later accepted the closure 16.7% Still do not accept the closure 27.8% Administrator Percentage (n=6)


Table 31 displays who accepted the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College in 2010. In 2010, the percentage of study participants who have accepted the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College changed by 18.0% compared to the

percentage who accepted the possible closure in the 2005-2006 year.

81

Table 31. Study Participants Who Did or Did Not Accept the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College in 2010 All Study Participants Percentage (n=50)

Accepted 68.0% Did not accept 32.0%







One-On-One Interview Results

Several hypotheses were proposed in this study and the hypotheses were anchored

by the Kubler-Ross grief construct. Together, these hypotheses formed an initial model of

the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of the employees of Compton Community

College. The one-on-one interviews sessions allowed the researcher an opportunity to

examine whether the study participants’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions

conform to the stages of the Kubler-Ross grief construct. In addition, the interviews

allowed the researcher to explore if variations existed in the grief process among the

different employment groups.

Denial. During the one-on-one interview sessions the researcher found that

administrators, faculty, and staff who participated in the study experienced some form of

denial. The responses from the employment groups differed for various reasons. Some of

the administrators, faculty, and staff did not believe the deaccreditation of Compton

Community would occur. This was similar to the responses the researcher received from

82

the online survey results, which showed that 49.1% of the study participants did not

believe the deaccreditation would happen. When Compton Community College was

placed on Show Cause by the Accrediting Commission, many of the administrators,

faculty, and staff did not want their institution to lose its accreditation. This sentiment

was summarized during the one-on-one interviews session with Staff 1 and Faculty 2:

Pretty much I was in denial, you know, because I didn’t want it to happen. Once I

found out I didn’t want it to happen. Yes, I was in denial. (Staff 1)

To a certain extent. I couldn’t believe what was actually happening–that we were

being literally considered to have our accreditation taken away from us. It was

just something that’s been unheard of. (Faculty 2)

However, from the online survey results we know that 45.3% of the study participants

believed the deaccreditation would happen. This was consistent with the responses the

researcher received from the administrators, faculty, and staff of Compton Community

College who participated in the one-on-one interview session. Staff 4, Administrator 3,

and Administrator 4 expressed this viewpoint:

No, I’ve never been in denial because, I mean, the word was out there. (Staff 4)

No. And I say that because of past experience. Other places that I worked at I

saw it was different and plus I had, you know, talked to others that were with the

Chancellor’s office before I took the job and they told me it was different. And I

experienced it. (Administrator 3)

No. because I was a part of the senior management team at the college. Because, I

had to help prepare the college for possible closure. (Administrator 4)

83

The online survey results showed that 75.5% of the study participants knew why

Compton Community College was placed on Show Cause. Furthermore, 71.5% of the

study participants identified the Compton Community College Board of Trustees

members as one of the reasons they believed Compton Community College was

deaccreditated. This belief was summarized by Staff 3 during the one-on-one interview

session:

I think so, I just didn’t want to accept the fact, well I accepted the fact that there

were things that were not working right, that there were things that were done

wrong, but that the whole campus would pay for what Board members were doing

at that time. (Staff 3)

Other reasons the employees who participated in the one-on-one interviews felt

the college was being deaccreditated was because of the fiscal mismanagement of the

institution. Staff 2 discussed the fiscal mismanagement during the one-on-one interview

session:

Due to the reasoning behind fiscal mismanagement and the way the school was

run at the time, and I could tell by looking–just working here looking around the

campus–the state of the campus. (Staff 2)

The fiscal mismanagement of the campus was also mentioned by Hoffman and

Wallace (2008), where the faculty believed the financial irregularities would be corrected

by the administration, but those irregularities were not corrected. In addition, Hoffman

and Wallace (2008) characterized the facilities at Compton Community College as being

untended; they noted filthy bathrooms and grounds littered with trash. However, few of

the faculty and administrators interviewed in this study shared this view. From the online

84

survey results, only 15.2% of the study participants believed the college was

deaccreditated because of campus neglect (untended filthy bathrooms and grounds

littered with trash). Staff 2 expressed this view in the one-on-one interview session:

The campus was filthy. I couldn’t find anybody. Nobody was around–the

maintenance people. There weren’t that many students here then. It looked like

an empty campus. (Staff 2)

Even though the online study participants and some of the one-on-one interview

participants knew the reasons why the college was placed on Show Cause by the

Accrediting Commission, several participants who were interviewed felt a sense of

helplessness or unease. This feeling was summarized by Staff 4 and Faculty 3 during the

one-on-one interview session:

Helpless, upset because as an individual there was nothing really I could do. You

know, one voice wouldn’t stand out. And helpless because it was like the upper

management–the board–which really could have helped resolve this. So, we had

no power and no control. So, it was just like a helpless cause, your future laid in

the hands of others and you just had to wait and see what would happen the next

day. (Staff 4)

I can remember how I was feeling, part of the time I felt very uneasy, very

worried, frightened, at the prospect of losing accreditation. At the same time I also

felt that since I’d been working really hard at preventing that from happening, so

you know there is a kind of a energy level that I felt. I was certainly willing to go

places like to the Concerned Citizens meetings, and local churches, and things

85

like that, things that I wouldn’t ordinarily do, in hopes that it would avert that.

(Faculty 3)

In addition to feeling a sense of helplessness and unease, some study participants had

feelings of disbelief and some were depressed about what was happening to Compton

Community College. This was summarized by Staff 3, Faculty 2, and Administrator 4

during the one-on-one interview session:

I was feeling kind of stressed at the time but some time I guess was wishful

thinking that it was never going to happen, that we were a very strong college and

the college will support itself. Stress, because of the things that were going on, all

the rumors that you were hearing, that we are going to lose our accreditation, that

they are going to close us down, and so on and so forth, so that’s stressful. My

colleagues were stressed as well, they were in meetings, they were stressed up,

not as stressed but concerned. There was a high level of concern with what was

going to happen. (Staff 3)

Very anxious, but in disbelief that this was actually happening. I thought at the

time that we were being singled out for the capricious attitude of some people on

the campus–which wasn’t really reflective of the general attitude of most people

on the campus. (Faculty 2)

Depressed, because I worked on the Accreditation of the institution in 1996 and

after putting so much work on a project and to find out everything went down the

drain. (Administrator 4)

Even though some study participants felt helpless, uneasy, depressed, and had a feeling of

disbelief about what was happening to Compton Community College, many were hopeful

86

that the deaccreditation be overturned through the appeal process. This reaction was

similar to the online survey results, in which 52.8% of the study participants believed the

appeal would be accepted. Many employees who participated in the one-on-one interview

sessions were hopeful the appeal would be accepted for various reasons, such as keeping

their current employment with the institution, that the financial irregularities had been

resolved, and that the Accrediting Commission was going to rescue and/or save their

institution. Staff 1, Staff 4, Faculty 2, and Staff 3 summarized how they knew the appeal

was being submitted and why they were hoping it would be overturned:

I felt once we found out that numerous of us were going to lose our jobs. So, I felt

like if someone else was going to take over, is going to come in with their own

ideas, is going to change a lot of things. So, I was hoping that it would get

overturned at that time. (Staff 1)

I felt that once we did the appeal they would have seen that we wasn’t in the

negative. With the budget cause they said the state came in cause we was like $1

million in deficit. They recovered the monies and we wasn’t in the negative as

they said. We was in the black. The money was just in different accounts. It

wasn’t showing properly from what we was told. And so, they recovered the

monies and our district wasn’t in as worse shape as some other districts that still

have their accreditation. (Staff 4)

I really did. I thought for sure that it was a misunderstanding, a little rush to

judgment, but that the appeal would be upheld. (Faculty 2)

87

Oh yes, that was one of the things I said, oh, they cannot get away with this, the

appeals sound like they were going to get through somebody over there so we

were going to get our accreditation back. (Staff 3)

However, even though some of the interview participants felt the deaccreditation

appeal would be overturned by the Accrediting Commission, others did not believe the

deaccreditation appeal would be overturned. This conforms to the online survey results,

which showed that 41.5% of the study participants believed the appeal would be denied.

This is illustrated by comments from Staff 2, Faculty 3, Administrator 1, Administrator 3,

and Administrator 4 during the one-on-one interview sessions:

No, because the school was not financially solvent. (Staff 2)

No I really didn’t, again I hoped that it would. (Faculty 3)

I don’t have an answer to that, I don’t have a clue. I didn’t have any thoughts,

because there was no substantial data to support, this was the first time that

anything like that had occurred so I didn’t have any thoughts about what would

happen. (Administrator 1)

No, I did not think it was possible, because of my previous experience with

accreditation in 1996. (Administrator 4)

The researcher found that some of the study participants who participated in the

interview did not recall their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs when they were informed that

the college was placed on Show Cause by the Accrediting Commission in January, 2005.

Some employees who participated in the one-on-one interview session felt they were in

denial after the de-accreditation of Compton Community College. This feeling of denial

was noted by Staff 3 and Administrator 2 during the one-on-one interview session:

88

I felt in denial after we lost accreditation. I don’t know why, I thought that maybe

some miracle was going to happen that maybe it can’t be true what’s happening to

us. I thought it was very unreal what was happening. Because I didn’t want to

accept the fact that we were getting so close to losing our accreditation until after

the fact that they had told us we had lost our accreditation, we had lost our

appeals, there was nothing we could do, we had lost our accreditation. After the

fact I still thought that something was going to happen. (Staff 3)

No, not until after the fact. Not until after the fact. Well after it was done, I knew

that the threat was imminent; I knew that whatever needed fixing would be

modified or fixed. I saw the state take over, and I would never believe that any

school would lose its accreditation while under state leadership for two years.

(Administrator 2)

Based on the one-on one interview sessions, the researcher now contends that

employees did have a sense of helplessness and disbelief about the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College, but that the period of denial did not begin in January,

2005 and end in November, 2005. Rather it occurred at different times for each

employment group and may have overlapped with other stages of the grief construct,

depending on the employee.

Anger. During the one-on-one interview session, the researcher found there was a

lot of anger towards the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees about

what was happening at Compton Community College. In addition, the researcher found

that the interview participants may be still experiencing some form of anger in 2011.

Some but not all of the beliefs and emotions that the researcher hypothesized for the

89

anger stages of the grief construct were supported by statements made during the

interview sessions. According to the online survey results, 66.0% of the study

participants felt anger between November, 2005, and January, 2006. Some study

participants who participated in the one-on-one interviews were angry about the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College. For example, Staff 4 described anger

about the deaccreditation:

I did not think that they was going to snatch their accreditation like they did.

(Staff 4)

Some interviewees were angry about how the Accrediting Commission placed the college

on Show Cause, skipping the previous steps in the deaccreditation process. Staff 4 and

Faculty 1 summarized their thoughts and feelings this way:

Because we was told we was on probation, then all of a sudden we was on show

cause, then all of a sudden it was like a force takeover. And so, I thought we were

waiting on our appeal. We never heard anything about the appeal being denied or

anything. I just knew we was in the appeal process and then all of a sudden, we

had another college to be our overseer which was Santa Monica at the time. I

thought we were still in the appeals process. And then all of the sudden in August

we was merged with El Camino College District. (Staff 4)

I thought we were getting screwed at the college in some ways. I just felt the

process wasn’t very fair. (Faculty1)

The statements by Staff 4 and Faculty 1 were supported by the research literature from

Hoffman and Wallace (2008). In Hoffman and Wallace, the faculty felt anger towards the

Accrediting Commission for the deaccreditation of their institution. The faculty would

90

rather have seen the institution placed on probation. The online survey results indicated

that 61.8% of study participants had anger towards the Accrediting Commission.

The study participants who participated in the one-on-one interview sessions were

angry at multiple individuals and/or organizations. Some were just angry at the

deaccreditation process, as stated above. Others felt anger towards employees of

Compton Community College. Staff 1 and Faculty 4 summarized their feelings of anger

during the one-on-one interview session:

Well, to recall back I could say, yes, I did feel anger. I felt anger towards the old

employees that was hired here and who were gone that I felt like, you know, they

destroyed the college. (Staff 1)

Because I felt that if certain employees had kept their noses clean, so to speak, we

would not be in this predicament. (Faculty 4)

To more fully understand the study participants, the researcher asked each

employee their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about the Accrediting Commission, The

Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, The Compton Community College

Board of Trustees members, local and statewide political leaders, and the Special Trustee.

The researcher was exploring whether the study participants felt anger towards the above

individuals and/or organization to determine if the researcher’s hypotheses were correct.

The researcher found some of the study participants who participated in the one-on-one

interviews felt anger towards the above individuals and/or organization, but not all the

study participants who participated in the one-on-one interview session had anger

towards all them, as proposed in the researcher’s hypotheses. The researcher saw similar

results from the online survey, where 79.4% of the study participants expressed anger

91

towards the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees, and 61.8% of the

study participants were angry towards the Accrediting Commission. During the one-on-

one interview sessions the participants expressed anger towards the Compton

Community College Board of Trustee members. Below are the study participants

comments as they relate to the Compton Community College Board of Trustee members:

I didn’t feel too happy about them. They was part of us losing our accreditation

(Staff 1)

Well to me they have disappoint me to the point that they should have resigned.

(Staff 3)

I felt a lot of anger because like I said I felt helpless in that my voice didn’t count

or the process wasn’t being done fairly. And from what I read and what was being

told from word of mouth I felt anger because it seemed like it was personal. If the

board would have just resigned I believe none of this would have happened.

(Staff 4)

Disappointed. All the board members–they could have resigned. If I was on that

board when they gave the option, “Would you like to resign and it may save the

college?” I would have resigned right then and there. But no, they wanted to stick

us. They know some of the things they did was wrong and they know it was

personal. (Staff 4)

I felt that we were singled out and that regardless of all the rumors, just the fact

that we were the first community college to have accreditation taken away–and

listening to all the other stories of why it was taken away–I wasn’t angry so much

at the Commission as much as I was at the people that caused this according to

92

rumor–and I would have to point basically to some certain board members. And I

thought that, “Wow! You know, we all have to pay the price for that.” I just

thought it was just unbelievable. It really made me mad. (Faculty 2)

Yeah, I can remember pretty precisely why I felt anger, I was really angered that

the administration and the board have this kind of reciprocity for lack of a better

term, a symbiosis that didn’t provide any type of check and balance on unbridled

greed. No check and balance on the potential for engaging in illegal activities, and

they certainly didn’t want to hear any complaints about that from the union or any

other group that brought up issues like that. (Faculty 3)

Yes I did, the first thing I felt angry about, is not at the state or the accreditation

commission, but I felt angry that our local governance people, that was elected by

the people of this community put us in that situation? (Administrator 2)

Anger at the Board of Trustees and members of the Senior Management team for

setting up circumstances which contributed to the demise of this institution.

(Administrator 4)

I blame the Compton Community College District Board President because of the

incident with the Executive Director of the Accrediting Commission, when he

called out her name, this and then from that point on everything went downhill for

Compton Community College. In addition, I blame the Board of Trustees.

Because if they would have resigned I believe that none of the accreditation

threats and all that other stuff would have went on forward because all they

wanted to do was to get rid of the board because they said they mismanaged and

they wasn’t managing things properly. (Staff 4)

93

Clearly, many of the study participants who participated in the one-on-one

interview sessions were angry at the Compton Community College District Board of

Trustee members. In addition, participants for this study had personal opinions about the

Accrediting Commission, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the

Special Trustee but the most consistently expressed anger towards the Compton

Community College District Board of Trustees.

Not only did the employees have anger towards the Board of Trustee members,

they also blamed the administration for the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College. This was summarized by several of the interview participants:

I wouldn’t point out, you know, anyone per se, but it was just, you know, like I

said the administration part of it. But the Board could have done better. (Staff 1)

The Board members were number one to blame, and of course we had

administrators back then that had a lot of blame also. (Staff 3)

I think there were administrators that were equally corrupt. I think there was a

level of corruption that filtered down, that there was simply benign neglect in this

place. Over years, years, for years there were rumors of grades being sold, and

some of this stuff with corruption really does go back to that period of time.

(Faculty 3)

The Board – the Board of Trustees and some of the administration. Because the

board micromanaged the campus and the administration allowed it to happen. We

had board members using the school bus to do trips to Las Vegas on the weekend.

You had board members that would have fundraisers and kind of basically force

you to buy tickets or you know, they raised money for people that ran for political

94

office, and basically at one point even asked all the administrators to give $1,000.

And I’m probably the only one who didn’t and got jammed up behind it.

(Administrator 3)

The Board of Trustees and members of the Senior Management at Compton

Community College. (Administrator 4)

It has to go to the top administrators. I would have to put the blame on the top

administrators or people in charge cause it’s under their charge and their vigilance

that we’re either going to sail in the same direction or we’re all going to be going

off in all kinds of different directions and total chaos becomes the norm for the

day rather than stability, and integrity, and you know, doing things the right way.

(Faculty 2)

Participants in the interview sessions did not cast blame, as hypothesized by the

researcher, on the faculty or to other employees (i.e. faculty and staff). They only blamed

the Compton Community College District Board of Trustee members and the

administrators. This is consistent with the online survey results, where 86.1% of the study

participants blamed the Compton Community College District Board of Trustee members

and 63.9% of the study participants blamed the former administrators for the


On the basis of the one-on-one interview sessions, some of the researcher’s

beliefs that were hypothesized were supported and some were not. The researcher’s

hypothesis about events that led the staff to being in the anger stage of the grief construct

was not supported. There was no evidence from the interview sessions that the anger

stage began in November, 2005, and concluded in February, 2006. When the researcher

95

asked the participants when they felt anger about the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College, only two were able to describe when they felt anger. Administrator

1 and Faculty 3 stated:

Started in 2004 through the loss of accreditation. (Administrator 4)

Spring of 2006, spring semester, is when I remember feeling very angry,

especially towards the end, especially when we were losing accreditation because

that came in June 2006. (Faculty 3)

Having conducted the interviews, the researcher now contends that the study

participants in 2011 might still be experiencing some form of anger about the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Staff 2 expressed anger about the

college losing its name, which occurred on August 21, 2006, and the changing of the

college logo since the deaccreditation of Compton Community College:

Because I felt like we were being lied to about certain things. We were supposed

to keep the Compton College name and a lot of people–employees and students –

felt strongly about that at the time. And that didn’t happen. We didn’t keep the

name. We were supposed to keep our logo which has been more recent. They

didn’t let us keep that really. (Staff 2)

Bargaining. During the one-on-one interview sessions, the researcher found that

some form of bargaining was occurring among participants during the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College. Similar to the online survey results, where 28.8% of the

study participants stated that they sought assistance during the deaccreditation process of

Compton Community College, several interview participants were having conversations

with family members and community members, rather than with their state-wide

96

organizations or local and statewide politicians as described in the researcher’s

hypotheses. Below are some of the relevant statements from the one-on-one participants:

My mom’s boyfriend when I got hired here–and my dad. As a matter of fact, they

knew about what was going on with the school. They knew better than me. (Staff

2)

I don’t remember, people asked me in my community, like I go to church here in

Compton so people they wanted to find out exactly what had happened. I

discussed it with some people, I discussed it with family members, you know they

live in Compton, and at the house I would tell them what was going on. Just

regular conversations, why did you lose your de-accreditation? I mean don’t you

guys have a good nursing program going? I heard on the news you guys have a

very good nursing program, why did you lose your de-accreditation. So I have to

go back to why the deaccreditation came, why the board members got upset with

their accreditation team, they got into it, they threatened each other, and then how

the Assembly person came on board. I mean you have to kind of give the

background so people understand why we lost our accreditation, because people

had the idea that we lost our accreditation because we are horrible, we were not

doing our job, that teachers were not good, this and that, and it wasn’t that. We

had good solid teachers, we had good teachers, we still do, but people thought

that’s why we lost our accreditation, because we were good for nothing. We

weren’t doing our job. (Staff 3)

Just various family and friends because they’re concerned about, you know,

people’s jobs, teaching and things of that nature. But other than that it was just a

97

question of disbelief, not really comprehending the total complexities of why we

lost our accreditation, and just bouncing that off of various people, and getting

their opinions and their ideas. For the most part, maybe just a little shoulder to cry

on basically. (Faculty 2)

My family members, they wanted to know was happening at the institution. I was

too embarrassed to talk about the whole process; however I did speak with my

family members. (Administrator 4)

In some cases, participants did not want to talk to others outside of the institution about

the deaccreditation. For example, Staff 4 and Administrator 1 did not want to discuss the

matter with others:

Because they was reading it in the paper and I didn’t bring it up. (Staff 4)

I don’t remember discussing, that was nothing to be proud of. My position was to

do everything that was possible to ensure that we provided quality services for our

students, and the people that we serve, because they were really not responsible

for what had happened, but they deserved to receive the education that’s deemed

necessary for everyone. That was my thought, but I think it was unnecessary,

unfortunate that our leaders just didn’t make wise decisions to take us in a

direction that would have been more beneficial for this community. I think

having a conversation about it would have been worse. The image was out there,

and a lot of people just didn’t know, and then me being an administrator I

certainly didn’t want to speak in a negative way against any parties, the board,

because those are the same people that would have to help us get to the next level.

So I just feel that there were some bad decisions made, and sometimes people

98

make decisions, all of us make errors or may not use our best judgment

(Administrator 1)

The researcher’s hypothesis for the bargaining stage contended that the employees were

in favor of Assembly Bill 318. This was supported in the one-on-one interview sessions:

I don’t know if it was to help us or to hurt us. At that time I was very much

pleased. Because it was going to save people their jobs. (Staff 1)

I think it was a good thing. It saved the college as far as I could tell. But I don’t

know if it saved us or not. (Staff 2)

Assembly Bill 318 they say saved the college, but it also gave the Chancellor

power to put that special trustee in to like take control. So you know, they say it

saved the college and then sometimes I wonder. They gave the Chancellor’s

office too much power. (Staff 4)

You know, I was happy with it. I mean, cause I think it was a choice. At that point

the choice was, “Either we’re going to close it down or we’re going to stay open”.

And you know, I was concerned about our students and also about my job to be

quite frank. I don’t know if people realize what was going on. I don’t think some

people realize how important it was. At that point I don’t know if I got into the

details that much. They’re just thankful that they passed the bill. And then later on

you knew that they hammered out this bill and then they had to figure out what it

really meant. “Okay. We want to save the college. We’re going to spend this

money.” And then later on they’re, “Okay. What does this all really mean

though?” I mean, even to this day I think they’re still working out a few things.

(Faculty 1)

99

I thought it was a fantastic piece of legislation. I think it did a lot of good for us. I

didn’t get into the details and all of that. But at the time the only thing that really

mattered to me personally–and I think to a lot of people–is that we can come to

work the next day, you know, and the next week, and the next month. (Faculty 2)

Absolutely I supported AB 318, as a union person, it saved jobs, but it also, more

to the point in the reality of an educational institution you want to keep the doors

open for student access. So not only did it preserve the jobs of the faculty, most of

the faculty, but it also allowed the institution to remain open. Not under its own

name, but as an educational institution, and it doesn’t matter what you call it if it’s

providing access to the community’s students. (Faculty 3)

I felt that it was necessary, and I am glad that it passed. Because if it hadn’t we

wouldn’t have jobs, we wouldn’t have an institution any more, and we wouldn’t

be educating any more. (Faculty 4)

I think it was very necessary had we not had 318 we probably wouldn’t be an

institution today. (Administrator 1)

I believe at that time that was the best you could do, to be honest with you,

because once it had gone that far, closure was a reality. It was a definite reality. I

really don’t really believe that the legislator who is often blamed for it, I don’t

believe he thought it would go that far, and it looked to me that he was doing the

best he could to back pedal and cover mistakes that he had put the college into.

So it was the best of a bad situation; actually there was no alternative, there are

forces who wouldn’t care if the college didn’t stay open, and frankly that special

legislation was the only thing that saved it. (Administrator 2)

100

I thought it was positive. Because it kept the college open, because I think, just

given the nature of community colleges in California, which is unique to any

place else in the U.S., you have colleges in every neighborhood and I think that it

kept the doors open and did not deprive the community of, you know, a place for

higher education in the community. (Administrator 3)

I was happy about the bill, because it keep the doors open and kept jobs for the

employees and the school for the community. (Administrator 4)

The above support of Assembly Bill 318 indicated by the one-on-one interview

participants was confirmed by the online survey results. The online survey showed that

80.0% of the study participants supported Assembly Bill 318. From the one-on-one

interview session, Staff 4 was concerned that the Chancellor of the California

Community College would have too much control of what happens at Compton

Community College:

Assembly Bill 318, they say, saved the college, but it also gave the Chancellor

power to put that special trustee in to like take control. So you know, they say it

saved the college and then sometimes I wonder. They gave the Chancellor’s

office too much power. (Staff 4)

From the one-on-one interview responses, the researcher concluded that all participants

were pleased with the Assembly 318 because it “kept the doors” open to the institution

and employees were able to keep their jobs. Even though the interview participants were

pleased with Assembly Bill 318, only three had conversations with their local and/ or

statewide politicians, two of whom were faculty members. Below are expressions of their

thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about their conversations related to Assembly Bill 318:

101

Well I talked to the staff director for the Assembly person, who wrote the bill,

because I used to work for the Assembly person for 5 years. (Staff 3)

So, I’ve been active with faculty throughout the years. Every once in a while I’d

talk to them. I’d call them to talk to them about things, ask them about things. I

was lobbying for us, you know, even lobbying the legislators to drop the whole

process. (Faculty 1)

We met with our local Assembly person primarily, we met later on with the

Assembly Bill 318 vote with another local Assembly person and had various other

conversations. (Faculty 3)

Based on the one-one one interview sessions, the researcher’s hypotheses about

the events that led the employees to being in the bargaining stage of the grief construct

were not supported. There was no evidence from the one-on-one interview sessions that

supported the contention that the bargaining stage began in November, 2005, and

concluded in June, 2006. In fact, the researcher concluded that employees could still be

experiencing the bargaining stage of the grief construct in 2011.

Depression. The researcher found there was some form of depression among the

one-on-one interview participants during the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College. Participants were sad and discouraged about the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College after they received their layoff notices. This pattern of responses was

similar to the online survey results, where 68.6% of the participants felt sad and

discouraged, compared to 19.6% who did not feel sad and discouraged. The

discouragement was expressed by the study participants who participated in the one-on-

one interview sessions:

102

At that time I was really hurt because I was one of the ones who got the layoff

notice. And at that time my concern was, you know, not being employed and you

know, feeding my family not being taking care of. (Staff 1)

I thought well, you know, because they said everybody was going to get one. I

thought for sure now we’re going to be gone. Maybe this place for good is going

to close down, because I had never received a letter. (Staff 3)

Several things, felt a sense of resignation, impotence, nothing you could do about

it significantly, you lost this one, what a tragedy, looks like it’s been a terrible

waste, wouldn’t be so bad if it was done for the improvement of the college, but

when you saw the college was declining and was steadily declining further by the

moves that were being made, the whole thing made for a depressing feeling.

(Administrator 2)

In some cases after receiving their layoff notice, the interview participants began looking

for other forms of employment, and in one case was working two jobs:

Absolutely! Absolutely cause you didn’t really know. (Staff 1)

I kept two jobs, yes. I had a full-time night job and full-time this job. (Staff 2) I think I mentioned earlier I made a conscious decision to look for a job.

(Faculty 1)

I always look for another job. I always look for another job every year.

(Administrator 3)

In the online survey results two-thirds (66.7%) of the study participants did not

lose hope that Compton Community College would remain open. However during the

103

one-on-one interviews some employees feared what was going to happen to their

institution. This fear was expressed summarized by Staff 3:

Yeah, you kind of were wondering, especially you know how you fear the

unknown, that’s what it was like, because first Santa Monica took us over, and

then they were gone, and then El Camino, and then El Camino came and imposed

their rules. So that was kind of stressful, to digest everything. (Staff 3)

The researcher’s hypothesis about the events that led the staff to being in the depression

stage of the grief construct was not supported. No evidence from the study participants

who participated in the one-on-one interview sessions supported the researcher’s

hypothesis that the depression stage began in March, 2006, and concluded in August,

2006. In fact, the researcher has concluded that the employees may still be experiencing

the depression stage of the grief construct in 2011.

Acceptance. During the one-on-one interview sessions, the researcher found there

was some form of acceptance of the deaccreditation of Compton Community College.

The hypotheses for the acceptance stage of the grief construct were supported by remarks

made in the one-on-one interview sessions. The staff was satisfied with the passage of

Assembly Bill 318:

Somewhat relieved. (Staff 2)

I remember I went online, you know how you go online and check the bills, and

you see you know what’s pending, and every day I used to check the bills to see

how it was, and one day I find out click and it was approved, signed by the

governor, and I said well this is it. We are now going to be under scrutiny to the

max. (Staff 3)

104

Well, at that time I felt, “Wow! AB318 saved the doors and we all–the majority

of us–get to keep our jobs.” (Staff 4)

I was pleased. I mean, I was happy because it meant basically we’re going to stay

open. Although, see, at that point we didn’t even have a partner, right? I was

happy. I mean, it meant they were going to try to keep the college open. (Faculty

1)

Total relief. I mean, I was just very happy to see that happen and I was very

grateful to all the people involved in that process. (Faculty 2)

Ecstatic, I mean we were really happy. Because we had worked really hard to get

it passed, it was a long process, it was nail biting. You know the whole time it was

on the floor of the legislature. It was so unnerving, it was a real nail biting time.

We were watching the emails, we were listening to the count. You know that was

really unnerving. (Faculty 3)

It was probably in the summer; I didn’t learn about it until the summer, and I saw

that it might be salvageable, it might salvage something, but what would be the

final outcome I did not know But I knew that that was better than nothing, and it

was like a last breath before death, and so obviously that was favorable, at least it

would save the college, at least it would give it some life support until it could be

salvaged. (Administrator 2)

I knew that was the only hope that the college had to survive. so a positive

acceptance. (Administrator 1)

105

However, some interviewees were concerned that the institution was going to be under

additional scrutiny with the passage of Assembly Bill 318. This concern was summarized

by Staff 3:

I remember I went online, you know how you go online and check the bills, and

you see you know what’s pending, and every day I used to check the bills to see

how it was, and one day I find out click and it was approved, signed by the

governor, and I said well this is it. We are now going to be under scrutiny to the

max. (Staff 3)

The researcher’s hypothesis that the employees did in fact accept the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College because they were allowed to maintain their employment

was supported. Staff 1 was typical on this point:

I was very pleased. We knew that the college was being saved by someone taking

over at El Camino. And again, you know, students would be able to receive their

education here, didn’t have to go anywhere else, people would still be employed.

(Staff 1)

Two of the three hypotheses about the events that led the staff to being in the

acceptance stage of the grief construct was supported during the one-on-one interview

session but there were no clear evidence from the one-on-one interview participants that

supported the hypothesis that employees were pleased with the partnership with Santa

Monica College during the summer of 2006 or with the partnership with El Camino

College. This differs from the responses the researcher received from the online survey,

in which 82% of the study participants indicated they were pleased with the partnership

with Santa Monica College and 68% of the study participants said they were pleased with

106

the partnership with El Camino College. The researcher concludes from the one-on-one

interviews that employees might still be experiencing the acceptance stage of the grief

construct in 2011.

I don’t know if I’m still in denial, or I don’t know what is going on. Especially

now that we have heard so much about getting our accreditation back and we need

to work towards getting our accreditation back, I feel like this is a temporary stage

of the college. Like, okay, El Camino is taking over, and we have the MOU and

all the things, but I feel it’s a temporary basis, not permanent. Maybe this is denial

still. I don’t know, but I still hope before I retire I will see the Compton district

running back the way it was or better. (Staff 3)

Yeah. It’s hard to know if I accepted it. I mean, at a certain point–right–I accepted

the fact that we’re going to get nixed because at a certain point the focus shifted

to, “You need to somehow get a partner”. You know, we accepted that. (Faculty

1)

Focus Group Results

The hypotheses tested in this study were anchored by the Kubler-Ross grief

construct. Together, these hypotheses formed an initial model of the beliefs, feelings,

emotions, and perceptions of the employees of Compton Community College. The focus

sessions allowed the researcher an opportunity to examine whether the researcher’s

hypotheses actually reflected how the deaccreditation of Compton Community College

affected the employment groups. In addition, two other themes emerged from the

sessions and were coded and then categorized into the following: assistances to other

107

institutions and future directions. The focus results are presented as follows: grief

construct, assistance to other institutions, and future directions.

Grief Construct. The focus group for this study explored the recommendations for

future research from Kearny and Hyle (2003), who asked participants to speak on how

their experience fit or did not fit existing grief models. Kearny and Hyle (2003) suggest

that this would allow better clarification of the grief model. During each of the focus

group sessions for administrator, faculty, and staff it became apparent to the researcher

that the focus group participants believed the model being presented by the researcher

accurately reflected the study participants’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions

during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. The following statements

summarize the response from the focus group sessions:

I think it does because as you, the way that you are doing it, the steps through,

like going through death and that is how everything went. I mean people, you

know they got angry and they went through all these different things. Because

they were in fear of what was going to happen to their jobs mostly, I think is what

happened and then also what was going to happen to the college, was it going to

disappear? The college has been a vital institution in the community for many

years and they just didn’t want to see it go away. They were willing to do

whatever we had to do to make sure that we kept our jobs and kept the doors

open. (Staff 5)

I think this model is helpful. (Staff 5)

Yes. (Staff 6) I believe it’s accurate. (Staff 7)

108

Because we went through each of those stages. (Staff 5) We went through those things. (Staff 7)

Well, I think it does. I think, I can only speak for myself. I took, but at first it was

denied. I couldn’t believe. When I said the news, I said, “What?” I think we were

all convinced that it would overturned either through the work of the chancellor or

the legislators. We had a lot of hope that the Commission and also but our special

people, we thought that Interim President and the first Special Trustee would able

to turn it around and I don’t think we really expected it. Then, when they actually

did it, I was in shock, I couldn’t believe they would do it to a public college in a

minority community and then we started scrambling. What the hell did we do?

And we had to bargain; bargain Perlta Community College District, Santa Monica

Community College, the Chancellor, Interim President, Assembly Person, and

good god. That was most of the leadership. On the rank and file, I don’t know if

they knew all of the things that the leadership was doing, but that is true and we

barely got the bill passed. It was signed by the governor in the last possible

time.(Faculty 5)

I’m just going through it with the development stages of Kubler-Ross with these

group stages that signify the grief of someone that’s going through some

traumatic experience and expecting demise so I clearly understand those

development stages. They’re also part of dying as well. So I see the correlation.

(Administrator 1)

109

But the way it’s been laid out when you say denial, anger, bargaining, depression

and acceptance, I think that’s a pretty good analysis. That’s just the way I’m

seeing it. (Administrator 2)

Yeah. I would agree with that. Although the thing about the lay-off notices that

was something new to me because ever since I came here we were getting, a May

fifteenth letter but everyone else I think was really shocked by it.

(Administrator 3)

I do agree. (Administrator 5)

Well to me it provided some framework for putting it all together. And if you look

at all the various feelings and stages that a person goes through is helpful too

when you have a handle or means of being able to put it all together and to lay it

out. And this serves a good person because I had a whole gang of feelings but

they weren’t organized and that’s what this does. It organized and allowed me to

put the whole spectrum of feelings into perspective. And because they did evolve,

they didn’t all come at once. One stage led to another state and the outcome of

what occurred at those stages lead to another phase in terms of our feelings and

our mindset. (Administrator 2)

As shown above, the administrators, faculty, and staff who participated in the

focus group sessions agreed that the model presented actually reflects the employee’s

beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions during the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College. However, during the one-on-one interview and focus group sessions

the researchers contends that hypotheses for the events that led to each grief construct

stage and the timeline associated with each of the grief stages did not conform; rather, the

110

grief stages occurred at different times for each Compton Community College employee

and may have overlapped with other stages of the grief construct, depending on the

employee.

Assistances to other institutions. During the focus group session, the researcher

explored how this model and/or the deaccreditation of Compton Community College

could serve to assist other institutions who are on the path to deaccreditation. Below are

response from the staff focus group session:

Ok, with denial I would tell them to wake up and smell the coffee. You

know look around and just take things the way they are because it’s never

the way it seems. You have to really be truthful even then too with this

denial thing, not so much just the institution in itself, people have to come

out of this denial themselves, personally. We had people personally

walking around and I would talk to someone and they would say “No,

that’s not going on”. Come on, they’ve been there longer than I am; they

know what’s going on. (Staff 7)

The anger stage? Get over it. Really. You created that anger while you

were walking around in denial. That’s why you’re so angry now because

you feel someone has done you wrong when you could have opened your

eyes and saw this coming and saw this happening. (Staff 7)

Well, we can start with the trustee, start with the CEO, somebody that will

just listen, that will empty the feelings that are harbored inside and you

can get them out. Now, what might happen I don’t know but at least we

can be heard? Everyone can be heard and there won’t be any of these little

111

side mark conversations where information is getting back to us as

incorrect in the first place. (Staff 7)

I feel that depression, that if you have someone to talk to about all of the

problems (Staff 6)

And the union has an officer and they can bring in counselors to sit down

and talk with. It’s just the same as if a shooting happens somewhere, the

grief and the depression that people feel then, you can have counselors

come in and sit and talk with us to help us to deal with it. (Staff 7)

I think it would be helpful, especially in the acceptance stage. If another

college comes and helps them out, I don’t want to say takeover because a

lot of people see it as a takeover but I saw it and I still do and I’m not

afraid to say that in any group of people that I saw the El Camino

company coming in not as a takeover but to help us get out of this

situation and you have to be willing to help. You can’t bite the hand that

feeds you. You have to be willing to accept the help that anyone extends

to you. Of course we’re mad, we lost our college and all of that but if

someone is going to throw you a life jacket (Staff 7)

Below are the counterpart faculty responses:

Look for a job. (Faculty 5) Save yourself some stress (Faculty 6)

How can you give advice like that, There is no advice. You either close or

you stay open. (Faculty 6)

112

There are so many reasons for the loss of accreditation actually. We tried

to get different board members, that didn’t work. It might have helped,

but we needed to whole set of change in the board, we needed everybody.

(Faculty 3)

Below are the administrators’ responses to how this model could assist other institutions

who are on the path to deaccreditation:

I think it would educationally beneficial to, in any institution that might be

experiencing a situation of the magnitude that occurred at Compton college

because what it does is, it shows the steps that they went through with the stages

and it also gives a credence to that you don’t remain at that statement, that there’s

life after death. (Administrator 1)

No you’re not. The thing that comes to my mind right now really is outside the

scope of the model. Because the model is based on the assumption and it does

very well after people have lost their accreditation. So I think one of the most

helpful things to other people would be looking at what put us in a position and

what could we have done to protect our long-term interests to prevent the college

from ever being in a position to lose its accreditation. Now the model doesn’t lend

itself to that. That to me would be one of the most useful aspects but for a college

that has lost it, you can’t beat this model. The thing that comes into my mind, I

look at how we evolved as a campus the six or seven years leading up to the loss

of the accreditation. And it was an evolving process and it’s almost like a frog in

water, if you put a frog in cold water and gradually increase the temperature and

allow his body to adjust, he would be eventually dead, cook him up to a ball and

113

he’ll cook him to death because you did it in small increments and that’s what

occurred here. If you look at the behavior of our board from eighty-nine,

gradually all the way up until the point of the loss of accreditation. We sat there

and because we were intimidated and we feared the loss of our jobs, we shut up

and buried our heads in the sand and allowed nobodies who were crooks to rape

our school and put it in a position where somebody could come in and take it

over. (Administrator 2)

I would like to speak to that because I think that at that time there were two-fold

things happening. One, we were achieving, we were at our highest enrollment.

We had won two state championships in basketball. I mean there were areas that

were flush and we had two federal programs. And so we had won a state program

that was the largest in the state for foster care and AmeriCrops program so we

were striving in one area and then in another area they were peril so my thought is

that these should be a warning sign to an institution facing peril. These things

should be in neon lights. What not to notice as a warning sign and move in

another direction to avoid this process. (Administrator 1)

Future Directions. Many of the faculty, staff, and administrators who participated

in the study enjoyed the opportunity to speak and discuss what happened to Compton

Community College. In the faculty focus group session, Faculty Member 6 mentioned

that the African-American faculty had a tougher time dealing with the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College because of racism. Below is an excerpt from this

participant’s comments:

114

I was stunned that in 2006 that whites could still be that racist. I’m going to just

put this on the table, because I was really stunned, because it had nothing to do

with academics, it had to do with race. So, I was strictly stunned at the behavior

of the Commission, because I for one, had hoped by the time we reached the

2000s that racism was on the decline significantly, but I was wrong. And I’ve

been wrong before. (Faculty 6)

Throughout the one-on-one interview sessions and during the staff and administrator

focus group sessions, the researcher did not receive responses from the participants that

they felt the deaccreditation of Compton Community College was due to perceived

racism on the part of the Accrediting Commission. Furthermore, Faculty Member 5

thought that because the institution was a majority black institution, the Accrediting

Commission would not close Compton Community College. The researcher now

contends that the data from this study should be analyzed in future research to explore if a

variation exists among the study participant’s beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions

during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College among different racial and

ethnic groups.

115

CHAPTER V–DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to understand the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and

perceptions of Compton Community College District employees during the

deaccreditation of their institution. In this chapter, the researcher will address the

following three research questions that were explored in this research study:



construct?





The researcher triangulated the data from three sources: online survey results, one-on-one

interviews, and the focus groups, to answer the three research questions.

Summary of Findings

Research Question 1

Do the beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions of Compton Community College

District employees conform to the stages of the Kubler-Ross grief construct?

From the triangulated data, the researcher inferred that employees of Compton

Community College significantly experienced the stages of the Kubler-Ross grief

construct during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Moreover, some of

the employees may still be experiencing the stages in 2011. The researcher now contends

that each stage of the grief construct occurred at variable time period for each employee,

116

and each stage sometimes overlapped with others, depending on the employee. Even

though the study participants experienced the different stages of the grief construct to

some degree, some of the researcher’s hypotheses concerning the stages were weakly

supported or not supported at all. The only stage in which all of the researcher’s

hypotheses were supported was the acceptance stage. In the denial stage, the staff and the

faculty largely believed the deaccreditation would not happen; some of the administrators

believed the deaccreditation would occur (37.5%) and some did not (37.5%). In addition,

half (50%) of the administrators believed the appeal would be denied, an expecation that

also conforms to denial. Furthermore, Staff and administrators in the denial stage felt the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College had nothing to do with classroom

instruction. Initially, the researcher asserted that only the faculty believed the

deaccreditation decision had nothing to do with classroom instruction. In the online

survey, however, only 19.2 % of the staff and 12.5% of administrators believed the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College was because of the poor quality of

classroom instruction.

In the hypothesized anger stage, study participants did not feel anger toward the

local and statewide political leaders, nor did they feel anger toward either of the Special

Trustees who were appointed to oversee Compton Community College District. The

study participants did feel anger toward the Accrediting Commission, the Compton

Community College District Board of Trustees, and the former administrators. In

addition, the researcher’s hypothesized that during the anger stage each employment

group began to blame others for the deaccreditation of their institution was shared by

some, but not all, participants.

117

In association with the bargaining stage, the researcher initially asserted that the

employees sought assistance from their union leadership, local and state-wide politicians,

community members, and state-wide organizations they were affiliated with, to help save

their institution from being deaccreditated. This hypothesis was not supported in the

findings for this study. A large majority (71.2%) of participants did not seek assistance

or guidance during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. Furthermore,

during the one-on-one interviews, several participants indicated that they did not want to

discuss the deaccreditation of Compton Community College during 2005-2006.

Moreover, if the study participants did discuss the deaccreditation of Compton

Community College, they did so primarily with their family members.

Finally, in association with the depression stage, the researcher initially asserted

that the employees sought guidance regarding their employment after receiving their

layoff notice, dated March 26, 2006. In some cases employees did seek guidance;

however less than one-quarter (23.5%) of participants indicated they received guidance.

The researcher’s initial assertion was not supported in the online survey results, one-on-

one interviews, or focus group sessions. Also, the researcher initially hypothesized that

during the depression stage employees gave up hope that the institution would survive.

This was not supported in the research study findings, as two-thirds (66.7%) of

participants did not lose hope that Compton Community College would remain open.

Table 32 summarizes the researcher’s findings on how the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College District affected the employment groups, organized by

grief stages.

118

Table 32. Summary of Findings on How the Deaccreditation of Compton Community College District Affected the Employment Groups

Grief Stages Administrators Beliefs/Emotions

Faculty Beliefs/Emotions

Staff Beliefs/Emotions

DENIAL

Believed the deaccreditation would be denied through the appeals process.

Felt that the deaccreditation


Did not believe the deaccreditation would occur.

Believed the deaccreditation would be overturned through the appeals process



Did not believe the deaccreditation would occur.

Believed the deaccreditation would be overturned through the appeals process



ANGER

Felt anger toward:

o The Accrediting Commission

o The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges

o The Compton Community College District Board of Trustees

Blamed:








Blamed: o The Accrediting








Blamed:




119

o Administrators o Former administrators



BARGAINING

Supported Assembly Bill

318, the special legislation to save the institution

Supported Assembly Bill 318, the special legislation to save the institution

Supported Assembly Bill 318, the special legislation to save the institution

DEPRESSION

Felt sad and discouraged after receiving layoff notices

Concerned about whether they would have employment

Hope that the institution

would be remain.


Concerned about whether they would have employment

Hope that the institution would be remain.


Concerned about whether

they would have employment

Hope that the institution would be remain.

ACCEPTANCE

Satisfied with the passage of

Assembly Bill 318

Were pleased with the partnership with Santa Monica College, during the summer of 2006

Accepted the



Were pleased with the

partnership with Santa Monica College, during the summer of 2006

Accepted the deaccreditation

of Compton Community College, and the agreement with El Camino College, because they were allowed to maintain their employment status while teaching El Camino College courses


Were pleased with the

partnership with Santa Monica College, during the summer of 2006

Accepted the deaccreditation

of Compton Community College, and the agreement with El Camino College, because they were allowed to maintain their employment status while providing services for El Camino College

120

Research Question 2

What variations exist in the grief process of Compton Community College District

among the different employee groups?

As shown in Table 32, some variation was found in the grief process among the

Compton Community College District employee groups. Variation existed in the denial

stage, in which many administrators believed Compton Community College would be

deaccreditated and the deaccreditation appeal would be denied. In this the study, the

variations in the Kubler-Ross grief construct were more frequently found among the

administrators. One underlying reason for the variation is that administrators had greater

access to information during the deaccreditation process compared to their counterparts.

As noted in Chapter 1, Compton Community College received various correspondences

from the Accrediting Commission during the deaccreditation process. Those

correspondences included letters and the supporting documentation from the Accrediting

Commission that place the institution on Show Cause and the letter that took action to

terminate the institution accreditation.

In the letter to the Compton Community College President dated January 31,

2005, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges placed the

institution on Show Cause, because Compton Community College was out of compliance

in the following areas: Fiscal Management and Stability of the College, Human

Resources and Personnel Practices, and Leadership and Governance. In the area of Fiscal

Management and Stability, the Accrediting Commission noted six areas in which

Compton Community College was out of compliance with the Commission standards.

One of the six areas noted was Compton Community College use of an interim Business

121

Officer. The Accrediting Commission recommended that Compton Community College

begin the process of hiring a permanent Chief Business Officer (Accrediting Commission

for Community and Junior Colleges, January 2005). In addition, the Accrediting

Commission recommended that Compton Community College review its administrative

structure for efficacy and that the College should implement an administrative evaluation

system that would enable the President to hold the administrative staff responsible for

their job performance (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,

January 2005).

In the area of Human Resources and Personnel Practices, the Accrediting

Commission noted seven areas in which Compton Community College was out of

compliance with Commission standards. One of the seven areas noted was that the

College should review all job descriptions and revise them to ensure that they represent

the skill sets needed to fulfill the duties and responsibilities assigned to each position

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, January 2005). In

addition, the Accrediting Commission recommended that the College conduct on a

regular basis personnel evaluations and that the college establish and implement a written

code of ethics policy for all Compton Community College District personnel

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, January 2005).

Finally, in the area of Leadership and Governance the Accrediting Commission

noted ten areas in which Compton Community College was out of compliance with the

commission standards. One of the ten noted was that the college should provide basic

skills training to the members of the Compton Community College District Board of

Trustee members and the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees

122

should design and implement an annual evaluation of the Board of Trustees performance

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, January 2005). In

addition, the Accrediting Commission recommended that the College review and revise

its entire governance process to ensure that appropriate and significant voices provide

input to the administration and faculty on academic matters and that budgetary and other

decisions are made utilizing a sound governance and decision making process

(Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, January 2005).

In the letter dated June 17, 2005, the Accrediting Commission took action to

terminate the accreditation of Compton Community College because the College

continued to be out of compliance with the Commission standards (Accrediting

Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, June 2005). Having access to these

documents, administrators fully understood why the College would be deaccreditated and

the deaccreditation appeal would be denied.

Research Question 3

Were the stages of the grief construct functional or dysfunctional in helping the personnel

negotiate change in the institution?

Based on the research study results, the researcher contends that the denial, anger,

bargaining, and depression stages of the grief construct were mostly dysfunctional for

the personnel as they negotiated change in the institution. However, the researcher

contends that the acceptance stage of the grief construct was functional in helping

personnel negotiate change. The study participants were in full support of Assembly Bill

318, and were pleased with the agreements with Santa Monica College and El Camino

College because it “kept the doors open” to their institution. This acceptance of a

123

compromised solution allowed them to continue their employment at the institution under

a new arrangement.

Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations to this study. First, this study included specific

questions about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. The deaccreditation

of this institution happened five years prior, and some of the study participants did not

accurately remember the details of events that led to the deaccreditation and some could

not recall their beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions they had during the


Second, the sample size for the online survey results was low, placing into

question the generalizability of finding from the online survey. The researcher sent two

emails to all Compton Community College District employees asking for their

participation in the study. In addition, several employees, who were randomly selected

for the one-on-one interview session and the focus group sessions, declined to participate

because they were too busy with their current work assignments. In some cases, they

declined to participate in the one-on-one interview session and the focus group sessions

because they did not want to talk about the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College.

The third limitation to the study was that the researcher is a current administrator

of the Compton Community College District and the manager of the departments that

many of the employees were assigned to. Some employees who work in the departments

under the administrator declined to participate because they did not want their thoughts,

feelings, and beliefs about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College to be

124

shared with the administration at either the Compton College or El Camino College. The

researcher on several occasions shared the Institutional Review Board approved Study

Information Sheet with employees who had concerns about the study. However, some

employees still chose not to participate. If further studies are to be conducted about the

thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of Compton Community College employees, the

researcher strongly recommends that a researcher with no affiliation to Compton

Community College and/or El Camino College conduct the study. This independence will

allow the employees of Compton Community College to feel more comfortable about

participating in the study, and the researcher believes this will generate more

participation.

Recommendations

This study yielded valuable information about the employees’ thoughts, feelings,

and beliefs about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. This research can

help colleges that are in the process of deaccreditation anticipate actions, beliefs, feelings,

emotions, and perceptions of their employees during the deaccreditation process.

The first recommendation is that such institutions implement the counseling

strategies recommended by Finley and Lee (1981), including: access their family

patterns, assess their “sociometric” stability, and access their significant others as

professional resources, and provide the employees with self-help literature. The

researcher contends that the administration of Compton Community College should have

assessed each employee during the deaccreditation process and provided them with

support or self-help literature to assist them through the grieving process. For example,

Staff Member 6 was dealing with the loss of a child. If the administration of Compton

125

Community College had known this, they might have provided the staff member with

additional counseling support to assist in the dual grieving losses being faced. During the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College, the institution should have provided

positive and mental activities, as Finley and Lee (1981) recommend. This would have

allowed for the employees to feel they were not alone in dealing with the deaccreditation

of Compton Community College. The college administration should have assisted each

employee with developing a professional plan. The plan could have included where the

individual saw themselves professionally in the next five to ten years. From this

professional plan, Compton Community College officials could have developed

professional development activities for the employees. Employees who needed to attend

college to receive an advanced degree should have been given the opportunity to do so.

The professional development workshops could have also given employees the

opportunity to learn valuable skills to be used in their current position or in different

position within another institution/organization.

In addition, Compton Community College could have provided employees with

job announcements about positions available at other institutions. This would have given

the employees a sense that someone cared about them and their future employment.

Compton Community College could also have developed exercise or fitness activities for

the employees during the workday, which would have kept stress level down during the

deaccreditation process. The above-mentioned activities could have provided the

employees with an opportunity to plan for the future and would have addressed some of

their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs during the deaccreditation of Compton Community

College.

126

The second recommendation is to provide information sessions to the employees

when the institution received correspondences (i.e. letters and the supporting

documentation) from the Accrediting Commission regarding the deaccreditation of the

institution. The deaccreditation process may have been less painful and more transparent

to the employees if they have access to the information. During the information session,

the administration should address employees’ concerns about the deaccreditation of their

institution. The institution should have utilized these information sessions to assess how

the employees are feeling about the deaccreditation at that particular moment. The third

recommendation is to work with the faculty, staff labor leaders, and the college

administration to establish small group meetings with departments to discuss the

deaccreditation process. In these meetings, staff and faculty would be given an

opportunity to discuss how they are dealing with the possible closure of their institution.

The fourth recommendation is that the college administration provides workshops

for the administrators on campus to assist them with dealing with the deaccreditation of

their institution. Many administrators who participated in the study knew what was

happening at Compton Community College during the deaccreditation process, but were

not provided with training on how to deal with their employees’ feelings during this

period. The administrators should have met more often during the deaccreditation

process, so that the administrators who were working with the staff on a day-to-day basis

were fully informed. This would have enabled those administrators to lead the group

meetings mentioned in the third recommendation, above. This recommendation is

supported by the Perlman and Takacs’ (1990) article “10 Stages of Change,” which

127

provided assistance to executives, managers, and supervisors by providing them with

tools to make decisions about dealing with change within their own organizations.

Future Directions of the Study

The researcher offers two recommendations for future directions from this study.

The first is to examine whether variations exist in the grief process of Compton

Community College District employees by ethnicity. During the faculty focus group

session, the study participants discussed how the African-American employees felt that

the deaccreditation had a lot to do with racism. In this study, the researcher did not ask,

nor did he explore racism and/or how perceived racism might have affected the

employees during the deaccreditation of their institution. In addition, one of the faculty

members in the focus group mentioned that the white faculty believed that the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College would not happen since it was

perceived to be a historically black institution. The researcher believes this issue needs to

be explored in future research. The data from this study may be a starting point. By

examining the online survey results and conducting another set of information sessions

with each of the employment groups, a researcher could explore the African-American

employees’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions and compare those results to

those of other ethnic groups. Furthermore, the researcher recommends that additional

one-on-one interviews be conducted with the African-American employees and members

of other ethnic groups to explore whether they felt or witnessed acts of racism during the


The second recommendation is to closely examine whether and how the

employees accepted the deaccreditation of their institution. Some of the employees who

128

participated in the one-on-one interviews and in the focus group session mentioned they

still have not accepted the partnership with El Camino Community College. The

researcher contends that additional research should be conducted to explore the

employees’ perceptions of the partnership with El Camino College. The researcher

believes this information will be useful to administrators of El Camino College and the

Compton Community College District. In addition, this information will be useful to

other colleges that enter into a similar agreement as the one formed between El Camino

College and the Compton Community College District.

129

REFERENCES Accrediting Commission For Community and Junior Colleges (2005). Final special visit

report. [Accreditation Report.] Novato, CA. Accrediting Commission For Community and Junior Colleges (2005). Letter to Compton

Community College Superintendent-President, dated January 31, 2005. Novato, CA.

Accrediting Commission For Community and Junior Colleges (2005). Letter to Compton

Community College Superintendent-President, dated June 17, 2005. Novato, CA.

Blau, G. (2006). A Process model for understanding victim responses to worksite/function closure. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 12-28.

Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive

guide to questionnaire design – for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

California Community College Data Mart (2009), Retrieved October 3, 2009 from

https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/studdemo_annual_college_rpt.cfm?RequestTimeout=1000

California Education Code. (2010). Sacramento, CA: Thomson-West. Carnegie Foundation (1970). Carnegie commission on the future of higher education:

open doors policies for community colleges. Hightstown, New Jersey: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

City of Compton (2009). History of the City of Compton. Retrieved December 20, 2009

from http://www.comptoncity.org/index.php/About-Compton/history-of-the-city.html.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1989). The American community college (2nd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass. Corr, C. (1993). Coping with dying: Lessons that we should and should not learn from

the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. Death Studies, 17, 69-83 Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Daugird, A., & Spencer, D. (1996). Physician reactions to health care revolution: A grief model approach. Archives of Family Medicine, 5, 497-500.

130

Drummond, M. (2006). Compton Community College–Keeping the doors open to rebuild and preserve educational excellence for future generations. Retrieved, September 6, 2009 from http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/IntheNews/PressReleases/StatementfromChancelloronComptonCollege/tabid/1058/Default.aspx

El Camino College Compton Center (2009). Campus history. Retrieved September 12,

2009 from http://www.compton.edu/campusinformation/CampusHistory.aspx El Camino College Compton Center (2009). El Camino Community College District and

Compton Community College District Agreement. Retrieved September 12, 2009, from http://www.compton.edu/campusinformation/ECCComptonAgreement.aspx

El Camino Community College District and Compton Community College District

(2010). El Camino Community College District and Compton Community College District Elements to be Incorporated into a Revised Partnership Agreement. Los Angeles, CA

Finley, M., & Lee, A. (1981). The terminated executive: It's like dying. Personnel and

Guidance Journal, 59, 382−384. Fresno City College (2009). Facts and history. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from

http://www.fresnocitycollege.com/index.aspx?page=230 Hoffman, A.J., & Wallach, J. (2008). The demise and resurrection of Compton

Community College: How loss of accreditation can lead to a new beginning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 607-613.

Kelly, P.L. (1988). Kubler-Ross’s stages of death model applied to Darkness at Noon.

Criminal Justice and Behaviors, 15(2), 172-178. Kearny, K., & Hyle, A. (2003). The grief cycle and educational change: The Kubler-Ross

Contribution. Planning and Changing, 34 (1,2), 32-57. Knoell, D.M. (1982). The transfer function-One of many, ed. F.C. Kintzer. In Improving

articulation and transfer relationships, New Directions for Community Colleges, 29. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: MacMillan.

Lorenzo, A (1994). The mission and function of the community college: An Overview, ed Baker III. G. In A Handbook on the Community College in America, It History, Mission, and Management Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Perlman, D., & Takacs, G.T. (1990). The 10 stages of change. Nursing Management, 21, (4), 33-38.

131

Schoolfield, M., & Ordunda, A. (1994). Understanding staff nurse responses to change: Utilization of a grief-change framework to facilitate innovation. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 8, 57-62.

Vaughn, G. (2006), The community college story. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Witcher A.E. (1987). The grief process as experienced by parents of handicapped children. Principal, 30-32.

Webster New World (1998). Compact Desk Dictionary and Styles Guide. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

132

Appendix A-Online Survey Questions

1. I wish to participate in the study a. Yes b. No

2. Were you an employee of Compton Community College District from January 1,

2005 through September 30, 2006? a. Yes b. No

3. During the 2005-2006 academic year, what was your job classification?

a. Classified Staff b. Full-time Faculty c. Part-time Faculty d. Supervisor, Manager, or Administrator

4. What is your current job classification? (Select the classification in which you spend the most time)

a. Classified Staff b. Full-time Faculty c. Part-time Faculty d. Supervisor, Manager, or Administrator

5. During the 2005-2006 academic year, how many years had you been employed with

the Compton Community College District? a. Less than 4 years b. 4-5 years c. 6-10 years d. 11-15 years e. 16-20 years f. 21-25 years g. Over 26 years

6. Gender

a. Female b. Male

7. What is your ethnicity? (Select all that apply)

a. American Indian or Alaska Native b. Asian c. Black or African American d. Hispanic/Latino e. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander f. White g. Other, Please specify_____________________

133

8. Prior to 2006-2007 academic year, did you ever attend Compton Community College

as a student? a. Yes b. No

9. Prior to 2006-2007 academic year, did any member of your family ever attend

Compton Community College as a student? a. Yes b. No

10. During the 2005-2006 academic year, did you live within the Compton Community

College District service area? a. Yes b. No

11. On January 31, 2005, Compton Community College was notified by the Accrediting

Commission that the institution was being placed on Show Cause. Select the response below that best describes your understanding of the Accrediting Commission decision.

a. I knew the reasons why the college was placed on Show Cause. b. I did not know why the college was placed on Show Cause. c. I was not aware the college was placed on Accrediting Commission Show

Cause.

12. On June 17, 2005, Compton Community College was notified by the Accrediting Commission the institution was to be deaccreditated. What were your thoughts when you learned about the Accrediting Commission decision?

a. I believed the deaccreditation would happen. b. I did not believe the deaccreditation would happen. c. I was not aware of the Accrediting Commission decision.

13. For the list below, select the reason you believe Compton Community College was

deaccreditated? (Select all that apply) a. Poor quality of classroom instruction b. Campus neglect (unattended and filthy bathrooms, grounds littered with

trash) c. Administration d. Compton Community College District Board of Trustees members e. Poor facilities (old building, poor lighting) f. Other, Please specify_____________________ g. Other, Please specify_____________________ h. None of the above

14. On August 5, 2005, the Compton Community College submitted its “Statement of

Reasons” in support of a request for review of the deaccreditation decision by the

134

Accrediting Commission. At that time, what were your thoughts about the Compton Community College deaccreditation appeal?

a. I believed the appeal would be accepted. b. I believed the appeal would be denied. c. I was not aware the college submitted an appeal.

15. On November 18, 2005, Compton Community College received a letter from the

Accrediting Commission denying the College’s appeal. At that time, what were your thoughts when you learned about the Accrediting Commission appeals decision?

a. I knew the appeal would be denied. b. I was surprised when the appeal decision was denied. c. I was not aware of the Accrediting Commission decision to deny the college

appeal.

16. Between November of 2005 through February of 2006, did you ever feel angry about the Accrediting Commission decision to deaccreditation of Compton Community College?

a. Yes b. No (if no, skip to question # 19)

17. If you felt angry, who were you angry toward? (Select all that apply)

a. The Accrediting Commission b. The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges c. The Compton Community College Board of Trustee Members d. Local and statewide political leaders e. The Special Trustee f. Other. Please specify________________________

18. Why did you feel anger? (Provide response below)

19. Between November of 2005 through February of 2006, did you ever blame anyone

following the deaccreditation decision of Compton Community College? a. Yes b. No (if no, skip to question # 22)

20. Who, if anyone, during November of 2005 through February of 2006, did you blame following the deaccreditation decision of Compton Community College? (Select all that apply)

a. Faculty b. Staff c. Administrators d. Former administrators e. The Accrediting Commission f. The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges g. The Compton Community College Board of Trustee Members

135

h. Other. Please specify________________________ 21. If you blamed anyone, describe why you blamed them for the deaccreditation of

Compton Community College? (Provide response below)

22. Between November of 2005 through June of 2006, did you seek assistance and/or guidance during the deaccreditation process of Compton Community College?

a. Yes b. (if no, skip to question # 25)

23. Who, if anyone, between November of 2005 through June of 2006, did you seek

assistance and/or guidance during the deaccreditation process of Compton Community College? (Select all that apply)

a. Statewide organization you were affiliated with b. Colleagues throughout the state c. Local and statewide labor leaders d. Community members e. Local and statewide politicians f. Other. Please specify__________________________

24. If you sought assistance and/or guidance, what type of guidance did you receive?

(Provide responses below)

25. Are you familiar with Compton Community College District, Assembly Bill 318? a. Yes b. No (if no, skip to question # 27)

26. If yes, what did you know about the bill at the time it was going through the California legislature? (Provide responses below)

27. Did you support Compton Community College District, Assembly Bill 318?

a. Yes b. No (if no, skip to question # 29)

28. If yes, please describe why you supported the Compton Community College District,

Assembly Bill 318? (Provide responses below)

29. On March 26, 2006, the Interim President/Superintendent of Compton Community College sent lay-off notices to all Compton Community College employees. What were your thoughts and feelings when you received your lay-off notice?

a. I felt sad and discouraged. b. I did not feel sad and discouraged. c. I do not remember my thoughts and feelings.

30. After receiving your lay-off notice, did you lose hope that Compton Community

College would remain open?

136

a. Yes b. No c. I do not remember my thoughts and feelings.

31. After receiving your lay-off notice from the Interim President/Superintendent of Compton Community College, did you seek guidance about your future employment?

a. Yes b. No (if no, skip to Question # 34) c. I do not recall.

32. After receiving your lay-off notice from the Interim President/Superintendent of

Compton Community College, who, if anyone did you seek guidance from about your employment? (Select all that apply)

a. Statewide organization you were affiliated with b. Colleagues throughout the state c. Immediate supervisor d. Campus labor leaders e. Community members f. The administrator responsible for your department g. Local and statewide politicians h. The Interim President/Superintendent i. The Special Trustee j. Other. Please specify__________________________

33. If you sought guidance, what type of guidance did you receive? (Provide responses

below) 34. On June 5, 2006, the Compton Community College District Special Trustee

approved an instructional services agreement with Santa Monica College to provide accredited courses at the Compton campus during the summer of 2006. What were your thoughts and feeling when you learned about the agreement with Santa Monica College to provide courses on the Compton campus?

a. I was pleased. b. I was displeased. c. I was neither pleased nor displeased. d. I was not aware of this agreement.

35. On June 30, 2006, the Governor California signed Assembly Bill 318. Were you

pleased when you learned that Assembly Bill 318 was passed and signed by the Governor of California?

a. Yes b. No c. I was not aware of Assembly Bill 318 at that time.

137

36. On August 21, 2006, the Compton Community College District Special Trustee

approved the agreement with El Camino Community College to provide educational and student support services to the residents of the District. What were your thoughts and feeling when you learned about the agreement with El Camino Community College?

a. I was pleased. b. I was displeased. c. I was neither please nor displeased. d. I was not aware of this agreement.

37. During the 2005-2006 year, did you accept the possible closure of Compton

Community College? a. I accepted the possible closure. b. I did not accept at the time the possible closure but later I accepted the

closure. c. I still do not accept the closure.

38. Today, in 2010 have you accepted the deaccreditation of Compton Community College?

a. Yes b. No

39. If yes, when did you accept the deaccreditation (Month and Year)? (Provide

responses below)

40. If no, why do you not accept the deaccreditation of Compton Community College? Thank you for participating in the survey.

138

Appendix B: One-on-One Interview Questions The following are the planned open-ended questions for the semi-structured interviews. Follow-up questions will be asked depending on the nature of responses. 1. What Compton Community College District department are you currently employed

in? How long have you been employed with this department?

2. Did you attend the Compton Community College in the past? If so, when did you attend?

3. What about family members – do you have family who attended Compton

Community College? Other connections?

4. Do you reside in the Compton Community College District serve area? If so, in what city do you reside in?

5. Thinking about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College, did you ever doubt that the deaccreditation of Compton Community College would actually happen? Can you remember when you had feelings of doubt?

6. Did you believe the deaccreditation of Compton Community College would be overturned through the appeal process?

7. How does it make you feel now when you remember the deaccreditation of Compton Community College?

8. Do you think you were ever in denial about what happen at Compton Community

College? When did you feel this way?

9. Doing the deaccreditation process of Compton Community College, did you ever feel anger? Can you remember why you felt angry? Can you recall when you felt this way?

10. Thinking about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College

a. How did you feel about the Accrediting Commission?

b. How did you feel about the then Chancellor of the California Community

Colleges?

139

c. How did you feel about the members of the Compton Community College District Board of Trustees?

d. How did you feel about the local and state-wide political leaders?

e. How did you feel about the Special Trustee?

11. Did you feel there is anyone to blame for the deaccreditated Compton Community

College? If so, who, and why do you blame them?

12. Can you remember if you spoke with people outside of the institution about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College? If so, who did you speak with? When did you speak to them? Why did you speak to them? What type of conversations did you have with them?

13. How did you feel about the special legislation to save the college, Assembly Bill 318?

14. Can you remember if you did speak with your local and/or state-wide politicians about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College? If so, what was discusses during those conversations?

15. Did you feel you or other employees were trying to “cut their losses” during the

deaccreditation of Compton Community College? If so, how and when did this occur?

16. Did you ever feel sudden depression, because of the events that occurred during the deaccreditation of Compton Community College? What were those events? When then those events occur?

17. After receiving your lay-off notice, how were you feeling? What were you concerned about?

18. Did you speak to campus officials about your lay-off notice? If so, who did you speak

with? What type of conversations did you have?

19. Were their instances during the process of deaccreditation when you felt that you accepted what was happening to Compton Community College? When did you feel that way?

20. How did you feel when the special legislation to save the college, Assembly Bill 318 was passed by legislators and signed by the governor?

140

Appendix C: Focus Groups Interview Questions During the focus group interview session, participants will be presented with the grief construct model used for this study. The following are the planned open-ended questions for the semi-structured focus interview questions. Follow-up questions will be asked depending on the nature of responses.

1. Does the model being used in this study accurately reflect the feelings and beliefs of the employees of Compton Community College during the deaccreditation process? Why or why not?

2. In what ways do you think the grieving process was helpful to Compton Community College employees?

3. In what ways might the grieving process have been counterproductive or dysfunctional for Compton Community College employees?

4. What suggestions do you have to improve this model being explored in this study?

5. Having lived through the deaccreditation of Compton Community College, how could this model be useful to personnel at other institutions who are experiencing similar challenges?

6. What advice would you give to personnel at other institutions who are experiencing similar challenges?

141

Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Approved Study Information Sheet

University of California, Irvine Study Information Sheet



Lead Researcher Keith Curry

Department of Education 310-251-6994, [email protected]

Faculty Sponsor

Dr. Michael Martinez, Professor Department of Education

949-824-5825, [email protected]

You are being asked to participate in a research study that looks at thoughts and feelings about the deaccreditation of Compton Community College. You are eligible to participate if you are currently employed at Compton Community College and also worked there during the period January 2005 through August 2006.

You will be asked to complete an online survey that asks about your background and your

thoughts about the deaccreditation process. It will take 20-30 minutes to complete. A small number of participants, chosen at random, will be asked to complete one of two

additional procedures, either a 45- to 60-minute individual interview or a 60- to 90-minute focus group with 3-4 other people in their employment group (faculty, staff, administrators). The interviews and focus group meetings will be conducted in a closed room on the Compton Community College campus or other location convenient to the participants, and will be audiotaped and transcribed. You may choose whether to complete an interview or focus group if you are selected for one of these procedures.

The only foreseeable discomforts associated with the study are the invasion of your privacy

and the potential for a breach of confidentiality. You will not directly benefit from participation in the study. However, this study may assist other higher education institutions in finding ways to manage their employees’ beliefs, feelings, emotions, and perceptions through the deaccreditation or potential deaccreditation process of their institution.

Participation in this study is voluntary and there is no cost for you for participating. You may refuse to participate or discontinue your involvement at any time without penalty. You also may choose to skip particular survey or interview questions. Your decision about whether to participate will not have any effect on your current or future employment relationship with Compton Community College.

You will not be paid for completing the online survey. If you are chosen for and complete an

interview or focus group session, you will receive a $25 gift card.

142

All research data collected will be stored securely and confidentially in a locked cabinet in the Lead Researcher’s office. The data, including the interview recordings, will be kept for 5 years and then destroyed. All identifiable information that is collected about you will be removed and replaced with a code to ensure that the data are kept confidential. No names or other identifying information will be used in reports or publications from this study.

The research team and authorized UCI personnel may have access to your study records to protect your safety and welfare. Any information derived from this research project that personally identifies you will not be voluntarily released or disclosed by these entities without your separate consent, except as specifically required by law.

If you have any comments, concerns, or questions regarding the conduct of this research, please contact the researchers listed at the top of this form. If you are unable to reach the researchers and have general questions, or you have concerns or complaints about the research, or questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact UCI’s Office of Research by phone at (949) 824-6662, by email at [email protected] or at 5171 California Avenue, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92697-76

university of california, irvine university of … · kubler-ross (1969) examines death and dying...

Documents